Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Education and Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John Butcher): I hope that it is significant that the first Friday debate after the summer break concerns the importance of developing links between industry and education. It would appear that this is a subject whose moment has arrived. Both inside and outside the House there is a growing and healthy interest in ways in which we can make education more employer friendly and ways in which our employers can acquire a greater understanding of the needs and objectives of education in the late 1980s.
As adults become more and more distant from their own schooldays, so their memories become increasingly selective. They remember hard seats, long hours, some dull lessons, bleak classrooms and cold showers. They tend to forget the more pleasing aspects—the joy in discovery, the satisfaction to be had from cracking a difficult problem or mastering a new concept—but children are very much aware of, and seek out, the pleasure and fun to be found in learning. That is particularly true when they are being treated as grown-ups.
The idea of treating young people as adults and showing them the world of adult life is not new. Some five years ago I arranged for a young sixth former from Perry Barr school in Birmingham to "shadow" me when I was at the Department of Trade and Industry. She took part in a number of visits to industrial and commercial sites in the west midlands and she found those visits a revelation. She saw intelligent people facing challenging problems every day and the fact that she found this novel suggested an unacceptable gap in young people's awareness of industry and commerce. Incidentally, I might add that Samantha Clark is now in her final year at Sheffield polytechnic reading chemistry and computer studies. I am confident that her experience in 1983 will play an important part in her approach to the choice of a career.
From that beginning, there have been impressive developments. The first step was the shadowing of 12 chief executives, in different regions, by 12 schoolgirls; and that in turn brought about a programme set up by the Institute of Directors in which 3,000 sixth formers are shadowing managers up and down the country. Work-shadowing has now received the ultimate accolade of becoming the subject of a new, and extremely entertaining, novel. Of course, shadowing is only one way of ensuring that young people have some experience of what goes on in the world of work; but other sorts of activity are also on the increase.

As a result, today two out of three children receive first-hand experience of the world of business before they leave school.
Why is it important for children to have this contact with industry and commerce? Did we not, after all, spend much of the last century trying to get young children out of factories? To start with, children enjoy the contact. They learn from it and learn fast. I will quote some examples of what some schoolchildren have said about their work experience. Sylvia Boumbourou from Mount Carmel school said:
When I went into the International Department of the bank it was incredibly busy and I thought I'm not going to like this…Then I learned about telexes and I typed and sent one. I felt really good with myself—I'd done something worthwhile.
Tony Hall at Holloway school said:
Early in the week it was really quiet in the shop with hardly any customers. Friday was much better, really busy.
Ukpong Anderson from Islington Green school said:
When we went to the building sites…I would write things down. Later on I was able to do some details on real plans. After a while it was as if I'd been working there for ages…in fact I got so into working there I almost thought it was my job.
Those children who have had the chance to experience it at first hand see the world of industry as an exciting, adult world. We may find that surprising; but it is because we are all too aware of the responsibilities of adult life—the need to pay the mortgage, the gas bill, saving for a holiday. Children, have a fresh outlook, and are able to perceive the opportunities offered them by adult and working life.
Experience with industry—and by that I do not just mean heavy industry, but all types of manufacturing and service employers, everything that contributes to our economic well-being—helps children to mature into adults with adult attitudes. The process of introduction to work-related activities is no longer the haphazard event it was in our childhood. Now it is properly planned and monitored. Arrangements are made in advance, and they are made with care.
More important still, those experiences are subsequently integrated into each child's education back at school. There is now an explicit understanding by a great many educational institutions and businesses of the importance of that activity and its valuable role in preparing responsible and valued citizens. That is not to say that there is no scope for improvement. I am sure that there will be many suggestions in this debate as to ways in which we can take those various programmes forward, and that a number of new ideas will be advanced. There is scope for improvement, and I shall come to that point shortly.
For example, the recent report of the CBI's education task force, chaired by Sir Adrian Cadbury, pointed out that more than half the firms in its survey did not have regular links with schools. That will have to change But let us first look at the background to these concerns, to see what lessons should be learned by education and employers in taking matters forward.
During the 19th century, our education system faced the task of ensuring not just that children grew up with a knowledge of the industrial and commercial processes that were beginning to transform the world, but also that they developed traditional character attributes of self-reliance, self-discipline, respect for authority and service to the community. That ideal was not a cynical philosophy designed to produce obedient factory fodder. It was an


attempt to educate the whole man: Not the universal man of the Italian renaissance—the growth in knowledge meant that was virtually impossible—but rather a self-sufficient personality with powers of analysis and reflection, with sober judgment and ease of communication—to quote Cardinal Newman:
a cultivated intellect, a delicate taste, a candid, equitable, dispassionate mind.
Unfortunately the interpreters of Newman and of the Arnoldian tradition failed to take on board the true implications of these ideas. Their "whole man" was really only half a man, who had received a rarefied and esoteric education in which the "cultivated intellect" and "delicate taste" were carefully nurtured, but the more fundamental aspects of society and its economic basis were thought to be beneath notice. All too often, those who had made their fortunes in industry sought in this way to rid their own children of its unsavoury associations. That approach bred a generation who, well-fitted though they may have been for the life of a district commissioner in the empire, were neither equipped nor disposed to become captains of industry.
For the others—the vast majority of children—education meant a brief period of rudimentary schooling and then, from a very early age, learning about industry at first hand in the heat of the factory floor. In that way, the thirst for knowledge, for self-improvement, was for most people stifled; they became unwilling, and thus under-achieving, participants in an industrial society. Our objective is, as always—that much used group of words—"broad, balanced people".
The legacy of the polarisation that I have just described survived, regrettably, in attitudes which were—and perhaps still are—to be found in the 20th century. For far too long, education considered the world of industry to be a last resort for those of its products who were unable to find "respectable" jobs elsewhere, and in consequence ignored it. Equally, industry tended to expect school leavers to come fully equipped with everything they needed to be model employees. Both attitudes exemplified a fundamental misunderstanding of the role that education can and should fulfil in our society.
What is needed is a balance; and the means of achieving it has bedevilled the discussions of educational philosophers throughout the 20th century. Of course young people need to leave school with a broadly based knowledge of the world about them, but they must also have the basic skills on which to build the capabilities that they need to function as adults in the world of work. To put it the other way round, young people must get from their education the ability to survive and prosper economically in order to contribute usefully and productively to society. But they must also have an understanding of that society and their responsibilities within it to be able and equipped to serve and improve it.
The Government's view is that a balanced and successful society needs both utilitarian and cultural elements. No longer can we be satisfied with the ideal of the "all-rounder" if it does not include an awareness of the practical realities of working life as well as cultural values. We need more engineers, more technologists and more managers; but we need to ensure that qualities such as the power of judgment, the ability to communicate and the

will to imagine are developed equally by students in technology and science as by those who study the humanities and the arts.
A very old joke is touted around, which I am delighted to say is now out of date. It concerns an engineer who, having been subjected to that well-balanced and rounded education, observed, "I wanted to be a well-rounded engineer, and now I are one." That engineer is a human of the past. Our engineers are becoming more articulate and more multidisciplinary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Judging by the reaction of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, there are some engineers among them who look forward to demonstrating the proposition that things have changed.
In the Government, we feared that many of our schools were still in some ways reflecting the old division between education for work and education for life. There can no longer be any such division. There must be both. The one complements the other. The desirable qualities that I mentioned earlier are of universal application and not the preserve of erudite scholars. Education in all its phases and variety must be available to all.
The Butler Act in 1944 ensured that all children would have access to free education from the age of five to—ultimately—the age of 16. This was a great leap forward, but its focus on fundamental provision meant that it would not treat the school curriculum as a priority. It has become increasingly clear that the education system has not been producing the well-rounded and adaptable school leavers the country needs.
For too long there have been complaints from many quarters. Some parents felt that their children were being taught values and attitudes that were not the traditional ones they had learned. Employers felt that school leavers knew little of industry and lacked the appropriate attitudes and adaptable skills that could be developed in work. Those charged with maintaining the fabric of society may have felt that young people were lacking in social values and a proper concern for the community in which they lived.
For too long, education has been seen as being about academic achievement alone, and either measuring up to it or failing by it. All too often, success has been measured in terms of achievement in the sciences, arts or professions. That has been at the expense of the acquisition of understanding and skills with industrial applications. One could say that we have neglected the enterprise culture to our cost.
So the Government are working hard on a number of fronts to change those attitudes. Let me outline some of the initiatives leading towards that objective.
First, and most fundamental, is the introduction of the national curriculum and the range of targets, monitoring and assessment measures and records of achievement that goes with it. The national curriculum will guarantee that no pupil leaves school without a proper grounding in basic areas of essential learning and skill. It will provide a framework of objectives and programmes of study.
At the core of the national curriculum are the three most basic subjects—English, mathematics and science—and seven other foundation subjects—history, geo-graphy, technology in all its aspects, a modern language for secondary school children, art, music and physical education. In addition, all schools will continue to be required to provide religious education for all their pupils, unless their parents stipulate otherwise.
This will mean that all pupils will receive an education that is broad, balanced, relevant to their needs and set in a clear moral framework. It will not longer be possible, for example, for girls to give up science or technology or for boys to abandon modern languages, and relevance and the application of understanding and skills are to be a main feature of all the core and foundation subjects.
Let me quote from the Government's proposals for science, based on advice from the science working group and published in August:
We share the Group's view of the importance of developing scientific skills through appropriate practical and investigative work. We also recognise the importance of ensuring that pupils are able to communicate effectively about what they have done. We shall not raise the standards of science of the kind the nation will need in the future, unless these aspects of science are tackled in schools. Nor do we believe that pupils should study science without reference to economic and social considerations.
Of course, simply bringing in the national curriculum will not of itself guarantee that school leavers will achieve appropriate standards across the whole range of subjects, but we are tackling this by introducing quality control measures in the form of assessment of pupils' attainments against clear targets. This will have two effects. First, it will act as a diagnostic device so that teachers will know which pupils are experiencing difficulties and will be able to arrange for the extra help that they may need. Secondly, it will serve as a check on the performance of the system as a whole.
We are also ensuring that examinations are able to give a useful indication of what pupils have learnt and are capable of achieving. We are improving the information that school leavers will carry with them as they seek their first job, so that employers will have a much better picture of the skills, abilities, aptitudes and personal qualities of the individual applicant than they were ever able to get from the bald fact that he or she had five O-levels, or CSEs, or whatever. These are important ways of making the education service more "employer-friendly".
These developments are also very significant steps towards the fulfilment of "the educational needs of industry", because in essence industry's needs are precisely the same as the needs of the rest of society. Society requires its young people to be introduced to a wide range of concepts, experience and skills, and as a result to be equipped with the knowledge—and the understanding and flexibility to apply it—that they will need to fulfil all their adult responsibilities towards families and friends, towards employers and colleagues, and towards the community and society as a whole.
But there are other ways—less wide-ranging and visible, but no less significant—in which schools are working with industry to ensure that they understand its needs and take them into account in what they do. Links at local level between individual schools and local firms are growing. The Departments of Education and Science, of Industry and of Employment are working together to foster and encourage these local initiatives, and the range of possibilities is very wide.
Let us take activities based in the workplace, for example. I have already mentioned the impact of work-shadowing. Work experience, in which a young person spends perhaps two weeks in a local firm doing a real job, provides the sort of first-hand experience of the world of business that no amount of teaching, however skilful, can supply.

Dr. Keith Hampson: It strikes me that, although what my hon. Friend has been saying is absolutely true, it was all being said by Labour Ministers back in the early part of 1978. Some of us on the Conservative Benches criticised them then for limiting themselves to mere exhortation. It seemed clear that neither schools nor business men, particularly in the smaller businesses, had the time or inclination to get together with any depth or understanding. Would my hon. Friend consider a system of field officers—based on either the chambers of commerce or the system of science and technology regional organisations—to act as a permanent bridge to bring the two sides together?

Mr. Butcher: I think that my hon. Friend has signposted one of the subjects of debate for this morning. The first point to note is that such people are being put into place now, as a result of the initiative announced by the three Secretaries of State last week. Those advisers will be signposting employers and schools in the appropriate manner to forge such links.
I hope that my hon. Friend agrees—indeed, I hope that there is universal recognition in the Chamber today—that the climate has changed fundamentally. It may have been simply the misfortune of that Labour Administration that the climate was not right then. I think that the exhortation of the past six or seven years has had a very beneficial effect, and it is now focussed even more by the demographic trend that a number of us may wish to discuss today.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be of good cheer. We have a much more positive environment in which to work, and I believe that both schools and employers are of their own volition taking many initiatives that they would not have considered back in those interesting days of 1978.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: May I remind my hon. Friend of the activities of the RSA, which have been funded not just by exhortation but with Government money? The "Industry Year" of 18 months ago has now turned into "Industry Matters", and is a continuing concern.

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend and I share a close connection, and indeed affinity, with the RSA, which has started something that I consider of long-term significance. As we discuss this issue we shall find it fairly easy to list a large number of bodies concerned with it, both within education and outside in the industrial and commercial world. An awful lot of people are marching towards the problem with considerable enthusiasm, and we must commend them for it. I hope that we can get through the debate with an appropriate mention for each of those bodies and that we shall not miss any out, for I do not wish to offend gratuitously those who have been working for such a long time.
We have discussed work experience and work observation, in which pupils are guided around the workplace to see employee activities. But it is also significant to note the way in which schools are managed and the changes that are coming along, so that we can involve the local community—particularly the business community—in a much more meaningful way. The new composition of governing bodies will give parents a greater say in the running of their children's schools, and the presence of co-opted governors—who in most schools will form the largest single category on the governing body


—will serve to broaden the range of interests represented. If none of the elected or appointed governors can be considered a member of the local business community, at least one co-option must be from that community.
The governing bodies of most schools are now being reconstituted under the new arrangements. In making their co-options, the new governing bodies will be looking to recruit a range of people from the community served by the school. They may be choosing bank managers, shopkeepers, police officers, firemen and people running their own small businesses.
The new governing bodies will include people with an enormous variety of backgrounds and experience. They will give their time partly as a matter of public service, but also because they recognise that this is a key opportunity to influence the direction that education is taking, and the preparation that our young people receive for adult life and employment. We believe that the new arrangements will enrich the life of each individual school and will make a significant contribution towards higher standards of education.
Many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, but I should be grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I could catch your eye later in the proceedings. I hope that what I have said so far has been an appropriate framework in which to pursue our discussions, and I look forward to hearing the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities in the Department of Education and Science. This is his first intervention in an education debate or in any education business in the House. I was impressed by the extent to which he was prepared to discuss ideas and to consider the philosophy of education. I am sure that that will enrich our future debates.
Much as we welcome the hon. Gentleman's arrival, those of us who have regularly attended education debates in recent years will mourn the passing of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), whose contribution to education debates provided some of the more enlightening moments. After his intervention yesterday during Prime Minister's Question Time, he, too, may feel that he would serve the House much better if he returned to looking after his party's education brief. It is noticeable that, so great is his influence within his party, he has left a void in terms of an education spokesperson for the alliance.
The Minister spent a good deal of time on the purpose of education. He stated, in terms with which I wholly agree, that the purpose of education is to develop broad and balanced people who can make a broad and balanced contribution to our society. I welcome that definition. It shifts a good deal of the Government's rhetoric and argument away from what I regard as a limited approach to the debates on the Education Reform Act. We cannot and we must not develop an education system that regards education as providing simply outputs for industry. That is wrong for two reasons.
I do not hold the view that sophisticated manpower planning can forecast what industry will need in 20 years. I suspect that British industry is incapable of knowing

what it will require in 12 months, never mind in 10 years or 20 years. We do not have the ability to build up such a sophisticated model of manpower planning. Our experience of manpower planning suggests that we have been far from successful in predicting figures of that kind. We should not develop an education system that will provide people who can be slotted into industry. As industry changes rapidly, because of the new technology, we want people to be able not just to fit into a slot but to move into a number of slots. We have to ask not how we do a particular job but why we do it and how it fits into the much broader picture.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman not concede that the message that all hon. Members are repeatedly getting from industrialists and business people is that their major requirement from the education system is not so much that which can be discovered by sophisticated techniques as the basic skills of literacy and numeracy and the other skills that should be provided by any basic education? Therefore, his point is not valid.

Mr. Fatchett: My point is valid. I shall return later to the hon. Gentleman's point, which is a different one.
The Minister referred to the philosophy and the purpose of education and said that we should not envisage education as the means of enabling people to fit into particular slots. That is restrictive, and bad for industry's future. Education has to be broad. That broadness includes a knowledge of industry and of a variety of other activities.
I always love to refer to the experience of a school in a constituency adjoining my own. I suspect that it is very well known to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). A few years ago two teachers at Harehills middle school, which had run into difficulties, took the initiative to develop dance as a compulsory part of the school curriculum. Their initiative was tremendously successful. Out of their initiative have come two professional dance groups—Phoenix Dance and Northern Contemporary Dance. I did not see the programme, but I understand that this week a Channel 4 programme was devoted to them. Phoenix Dance has already had the ultimate accolade of a South Bank programme devoted to it.
The result of that initiative by two teachers has been a significant change in the character of the school. It has come to life. Many good things happen in the school, not just in terms of dance. That initiative has provided the youngsters and the teachers with greater self-confidence and the ability to achieve in other areas. The point that I am making from that experience is that education is about developing the whole person in order to give him the confidence and ability to undertake tasks in many arenas, one of which is industry. The others relate to much broader aspects.

Dr. Hampson: Surely there is another lesson to be learned from it. It has been learnt in inner-city areas in America, in cities such as Boston. It is important, if possible, to put resources into specialised areas to enrich particular parts of the school curriculum, because it can lift the reputation of the school. I should be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman backs those of us who for more than a decade have been calling for the development


of magnet schools in certain local education authorities. The Leeds education authority could be given a few lessons.

Mr. Fatchett: I am sure that it would not be appropriate to have a debate about Leeds, but I am keen to see the development of special characteristics in our schools. I am not sure whether they should be called magnet schools; I do not want to enter into a semantic argument of that kind. However, the education system should allow schools to develop special characteristics, whether dance or engineering, or something else.
Schools should be able to develop special interests and special characteristics. The fear that some of us have always had about a national curriculum is that it may not allow such abilities to be developed. The national curriculum has to be sufficiently flexible to allow that to happen. I agree with the Minister that we need to develop a broad liberal education that will lead to balanced individuals and a balanced society.
That does not mean that an understanding of industry should not play an important part in education. Any youngster who leaves school at 16 or 18 should understand the society in which he or she lives. They should understand how wealth is created and what happens to it—how and why it is distributed in particular forms. The "how" questions are important. Equally, the "why" questions are important. Through the ability to ask the "why" questions, we stimulate the debate that moves society on and enables progress to be made. We want an understanding of industry. We want an understanding that allows questions to be asked about the purpose of industry and the broader purposes of society.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman refers to the need to understand industry and the need for progress. One of industry's great characteristics is competition, yet when the Government introduced the new city technology colleges the Opposition condemned that initiative. They said that it would compete with their own local authority monopolies.

Mr. Fatchett: I shall refer later to the city technology colleges. It is not inconsistent to say that we need to understand the nature of competition. Whether people accept the value of competition, and some of the more rigorous examples of it, is up to them. They must make political and personal choices. If there is to be any understanding of the capitalist market society, there must inevitably be an understanding of the role that competition plays in it.
Alongside industry, we expect youngsters to leave education understanding other institutions in our society. Industry is one important institution. So are trade unions. So is local government. So is this place. It would be encouraging if more youngsters left school with a greater understanding of how the political system works, the nature of decision making and the role played by Parliament. Such an interest should be developed. Given the opportunity to learn such information, young people are more willing to participate in decision making.
I agree with the Minister that any good education system must be broad and balanced, enabling people to understand industry and to place industry in a broader social context. It must enable people to understand values

and to challenge and analyse them. I think that we all agree that we must never have a narrow education system which tries merely to train people to perform specific tasks.
I was glad to hear the Minister say that there was traditionally a sharp division in the English education system. That may be truer for the English education system than for the Scottish or Welsh education systems. As the Minister said, the distinction was between a well trained and well educated group equipped to run the empire and the vast majority of the population who were trained to perform certain tasks in industry. Their knowledge of industry developed haphazardly on the job and was based on experience. We should move away from the first and develop the second so that people see wider opportunities and a wider chance to develop their talents.
Thus far we all agree, but we run into difficulty with the Minister's suggested initiative to enhance the relationship between education and industry, and their mutual understanding. The Minister focused his attention on the Government's introduction of the national curriculum. Those of us who were involved in the long debates on the Education Reform Act 1988 will have been through many of these arguments before, but I should like to put two detailed points to the Minister and then make a broader general one about the national curriculum.
The Minister said that testing will make an important contribution to improving standards and performance. We have always accepted the role of testing. We disagree with the Government about the balance between what may be seen as competitive testing and what may be seen as diagnostic testing. The Minister seemed to come to the side of the argument that we advanced on Second Reading and in Standing Committee on the Education Reform Bill. We have always favoured diagnostic testing and believed that the vast majority of teachers and schools participate regularly in it.
The Minister used the term "diagnostic testing", and we welcome that. We accept the need for it, but will the Minister tell us the Government's intentions with regard to publishing the results of testing at the ages of seven, 11 and 14? To what extent will those results be presented in a competitive context in an attempt to compare schools and local education authorities? We have always felt that there are substantial difficulties associated with that process, as we do not have the sophisticated measures required to show different inputs in different schools or education authorities.

Mr. Butcher: As is his right, the hon. Gentleman is selectively interpreting my opening speech. I am saying that, if we continue the 19th century tradition of educating the whole man, in 20th century terms we shall be educating half a man. If people are unfamiliar with the enterprise ethic and wealth creation activity, they are half persons.
I was clear about testing. I regard it as part of the quality control mechanism that we need in education. Teachers will always deliver according to their own judgment against yardsticks, but testing has to be about quality control and monitoring. That is a legitimate objective in every other walk of life. The hon. Gentleman started by being very kind to me, but his analysis of my opening speech is a little unkind.

Mr. Fatchett: I shall again extend the hand of kindness to the Minister, as I am not sure that the difference between us is substantial. The report of the task group on


assessment and testing considers the need for assessment against critieria. That is testing, and anybody who has been involved in education understands that it is a necessary part of the education process. The difference between us concerns what happens to the results of testing.
TGAT and the science and maths working party show that testing must rely on individual teachers. There is no question of teachers not being involved, but how will the results be published? What form will they take? For what ages will they be shown? How will the Government take account of the different socio-economic factors that still determine performance of schools and local education authorities to a great extent?
The Minister said—quite rightly, as it is the nature of the Education Reform Act—that the three core subjects of the national curriculum will be English, maths and science. Just over 12 months ago, it was possible for the Government to have arrived, with teachers and political organisations, at a consensual core curriculum which would have provided a framework of agreement for the education system into the next century. The Government and the Secretary of State decided on another course, which involved little consultation and little interest in other people's views.
As a result, the Government now face a severe problem in terms of delivering the national curriculum. If ever there was an example of the Government rushing and then not being able to make pace later, the national curriculum is it. If the Government had talked to the education service, and if they had realised what was said in the three major political parties' manifestos for the 1987 general election, they would have seen the basis of consensus. That is why the Labour party never voted against the principle of a national curriculum.
Instead of building up co-operation before legislation, the Government are now trying to put together a national curriculum without consultation and, to some extent, without confidence. Come the 1991 or 1992 general election, Conservative Members will not be able to talk about delivering a national curriculum. There will have been four wasted educational years, as little of the national curriculum will be in place by then. If the Government's diagnosis of education problems depends on a prescription called the national curriculum, they will not be able to deliver that prescription by the next general election.
I should like to hear the Minister give some further indication of the time scale of delivery. It will not make good news for Conservative Members. I should also like to hear something about the balance of the national curriculum. The Government have had more than 15 months to think about that balance, but there is still no published version and no understanding of it. How much time are we to spend on maths? How much time are we to spend on science? How much time are we to spend on foreign languages? The Government simply do not know the answers to those questions. It is crucial that at some stage, perhaps today, the Minister gives us a breakdown of the national curriculum and sets out its component parts.
The national curriculum presupposes that sciences and foreign languages will be taught to all until the age of 16. We do not disagree with that objective, but we are profoundly worried about it. I do not believe that the Secretary of State has understood the educational

difficulties in providing education in science and foreign languages for all until the age of 16. It is not good enough to say that if those subjects are made compulsory youngsters will not have the right to opt out of them as they do now. That may be correct, but if one wants to provide a good education one must understand the means of delivering it. Part of that process involves an ability to maintain the interest of all pupils in science and in foreign languages until the age of 16. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give us some idea as to the Government's thinking on how to maintain that interest.
My final point about the national curriculum is that, to deliver a national curriculum of quality and one that will improve standards in our schools, we need a well-motivated teaching force. There must be sufficient numbers in the appropriate subjects to deliver that curriculum. That is a major problem that faces the Government and to which they have not related in an effective way.
There is a growing crisis in our educational system because of a teacher shortage and all the evidence points to that. In June, the evidence provided by the Engineering Council, the Secondary Heads Association and the Headmasters' Conference all showed an acute and growing shortage of teachers in the key subjects. Those are the subjects to which the Minister referred as the keys to delivering higher educational standards and higher standards for industry. Those shortage subjects—maths, physics and foreign languages—are the very subjects that are at the core of the national curriculum.
I was involved with a survey published this week which shows that two thirds of local education authorities are now finding it increasingly difficult to recruit teachers of maths, physics, general science and foreign languages. That crisis holds the key to educational performance. The Government, however, appear to be taking no measures to ensure that we have a sufficiently large and well-motivated teaching force. As demographic changes hit this country, the pool of youngsters from which we can recruit our teachers will become smaller and smaller. To maintain our teaching force, we need to take a larger percentage from that pool, but what are the Government doing to encourage people into the teaching profession? The Government have simply failed to come up with any measures that will make teaching more attractive and more rewarding.

Mr. David Lightbown (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Oh!

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) may scoff from the Treasury Bench, but the reality is that there is a drain of people from the teaching profession.
Well-qualified teachers are leaving the profession simply because they are not motivated enough to stay. Apart from salary, there are two reasons for that. For nine years we have had a Government who have consistently run down the professionalism of teachers. Such criticism has been one of the occupational pleasures of the Conservative Benches. The results of such criticism are now coming home to roost, because teachers recognise that they are serving a Government who have consistently undermined their performance and status. The Government now are paying the price for that, as teachers leave the profession.
The second Government measure that further undermined morale was the abolition of teachers' pay negotiations. That basic democratic right, supported by international organisations, was taken away from teachers. The Government's entire approach has been to weaken the attractions of the teaching profession.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The hon. Gentleman's argument appears to be that there are too few teachers. Perhaps he would like to come home with me and explain to my young son why he was denied a day's education yesterday. The Inner London education authority, finding that it has too many teachers, is seeking, sensibly, to redeploy them. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is sponsored by the National Union of Teachers. What would he say to its London members about their professionalism, given that they denied young children, such as my son, a day's education? What effect does he think that such action has on the confidence of young children in the teaching force? What sort of professionalism is that?

Mr. Fatchett: That was a far from effective intervention, and it was wrong on two points. First, I am not sponsored by the NUT, I never have been, and have never been a member of that union. On that basis I suspect that the case of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) is rather threadbare. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, but I hope that he never represents me and puts a case forward on that basis.
The argument that the hon. Member for Banbury put forward fell apart at first, but I believe that he was seeking to make a serious point, and I shall respond in a similar manner. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the Labour party has said that it supports the approach to compulsory redeployment adopted by our colleagues in ILEA. We oppose those teachers who are making that process difficult for it. We also said to our colleagues in ILEA that we thought that they should have adopted a process of redeployment some time ago as it would have saved money and would have meant that scarce resources were used more effectively. On that basis, I believe that the hon. Gentleman's intervention falls on two counts.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) help us by saying a little more about trade union reaction to regional pay bargaining? Many teachers in my area of Surrey would very much like regional pay settlements instead of the nonsense that is currently spoken about everyone being paid the same amount. That is one of the main difficulties in getting good teachers in the south-east.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I believe that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) is sponsored by ASTMS.

Mr. Fatchett: I am glad that somebody has done some homework and provides the necessary information. That union, which has now changed its name, does not sponsor me, but sponsors my constituency Labour party.

Mr. Baldry: What is that union called now?

Mr. Fatchett: I will offer that information so that the hon. Gentleman's next intervention will be correct. My constituency party was originally sponsored by ASTMS and those hon. Members who are interested in industrial

relations will now know that it has changed its name to MFS—the Manufacturing, Finance and Science union. I hope that the hon. Member for Banbury does not fall into the same trap as I did, because at the press conference that launched MFS I sadly slipped into calling it MFI.
The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) asked about regional pay variations. I do not believe that that is a solution to the problem. The problem is not so much one of regional differences—the survey conducted by the Labour party and other surveys have demonstrated that—the real problem is subject shortages. There is a shortage of teachers of maths, science and foreign languages. Those subject shortages occur not only in Surrey, but in Leeds, the north-east and across the country. There is no regional variation in that. We need to find ways to recruit teachers in those shortage subjects.
If the national curriculum is to improve standards, it needs enough good-quality teachers, but the Government are not providing teachers for that purpose.
My second major point relates to our ability to provide for industry's needs in post-16 education. The substantial failure, which the Education Reform Act 1988 did not resolve, is the ability of the education system to retain youngsters after the age of 16. The biggest single educational loss of talent and ability is at the age of 16. That is an indictment not just of the Government but of the education system. International comparative figures show that Britain's staying-on rate at the age of 16 is half that in many of our competitor countries in western Europe, in Japan and in the United States. Even worse, some of the south-east Asian countries, especially South Korea, will soon have a much more substantial staying-on rate than in the United Kingdom. An article published in the Financial Times in June shows that roughly seven out of 10 South Korean youngsters leave school at the age of 18 with technical qualifications approaching or beyond A-level standard.
That is what we are competing against, but the Education Reform Act failed to deal with it. We must create the conditions in which our youngsters want to stay on in education after the age of 16. We shall not compete or provide the Minister's "balanced person" unless we continue to provide good quality education and training beyond the age of 16.
Going around the country, as I and many hon. Members do, and talking to representatives of British industry, the response that we increasingly hear is that we are short of skilled people. Those skills shortages are developing not just in Surrey and the south-east but in other areas, and they are very much a reflection of our teacher shortages. They are specialist skill shortages. Last week, I visited the Vickers factory in Leeds, and the manager told me that the company had difficulty recruiting planners and engineers. Education should make a contribution to resolving that skills crisis, and the real indictment of the Government and the Secretary of State for Education and Science is that at no time during the passage of the Education Reform Bill did they try to aid the development of technical skills and expertise among 16-year-olds.

Mr. James Pawsey: May I take it that the hon. Gentleman would support my right hon. Friend's advice to the interim advisory committee that differentials should be taken into account? Those differentials will ensure that the shortage subjects will


attract teachers because they will be better remunerated. Secondly, at long last the hon. Gentleman seems to have been converted to the idea of city technology colleges. They will go a long way to resolving some of the problems to which he referred.

Mr. Fatchett: If the hon. Gentleman can see, on the basis of such flimsy evidence, conversion where none exists perhaps he should have chosen the Church rather than politics as a profession.
We need to develop a strategy that helps us to provide good quality education and training post-16, and I offer the Minister three suggestions for developing Government policy. First, we must reconsider—a cost is involved, but it must be faced because it is an investment—the provision of educational maintenance allowances or study grants for youngsters who stay on in education post-16. We know for a fact that youngsters—mainly girls—leave education at the age of 16 for financial reasons. We need to provide the financial incentive and security to stay on, and it would have been a significant education reform if the 1988 Act had included a provision for such study grants.
Secondly, we must broaden the range of skill and qualifications post-16. One of the most damaging acts of the Secretary of State—I sense that it was not his decision but that of the Prime Minister—was to reject at a stroke the Higginson report on the reform of A-levels. The education system cries out for broader provision post-16—a provision that reflects the Government's national curriculum, that will allow our youngsters to maintain a broad and balanced education that will allow them to study science and technical subjects, together with arts and the social sciences, after the age of 16. Britain is unique in the Western world in its provision of post-16 education and training. Only we believe that a tight, specific education is the road to the future. I believe otherwise. We must develop a much broader base for our post-16 education.
Finally, to deal with a point made by several Conservative Members, the Government must reconsider yet again our training requirements. The best way to deal with skills shortages is to return to the provision of long-term training courses—skills-based, employer-based and college-based, but providing genuine skills. I was interested to read an article in Computing Weekly of 25 August which showed that the information technology industry has rejected the Government's approach to training. It believes that the Government's courses are underfunded and aimed too low. We need to extend them and to return to long-term provision to deal with the skills and training shortage.
Very finally—

Mr. Pawsey: That is the second "very finally".

Mr. Fatchett: Without all the helpful interventions from Conservative Members, my agenda would not have been extended. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), in his usual mischievous way—I sat through 200 hours of it in the debates on the Education Reform Bill—always wants to extend the debate, and he asked me about my conversion to city technology colleges.
In conclusion, let me say that there has been no such conversion. City technology colleges will not provide the

skills and resources that are necessary for all our youngsters. As we saw in The Times Educational Supplement last week, the programme has already run into the greatest difficulty. Conservative Members will recall—I am sure that they participated in the statutory standing ovation—that at the 1986 Conservative party conference the Secretary of State described city technology colleges as the most significant reform of the century. It seems that any initiative taken by the Secretary of State is the most significant reform of the century. He said that industry would come into the education system to reform and reshape it and to give it new life.
At the following year's Conservative party conference, the Secretary of State said that this great initiative to open 20 technology colleges had not run as smoothly as he might have hoped. But at that stage he was delighted to announce to the faithful that one of the 20 schools had been opened in Solihull. This year he returned, and somehow the city technology colleges started to slip off his agenda. That is hardly surprising, because he will not now reach the figure that was suggested at the 1986 conference. He will not reach it because industry recognises that it is not its job to finance and resource education: it is the Government's job. That is why industry has not been prepared to come forward with the cash.
If Conservative Members deny this or disagree with it, they should remember that in the early days, in that conference speech in 1986 in Bournemouth, the Secretary of State said that most of the money would come from industry and that the Exchequer—the public purse— would play little part. The opposite has happened: 80 per cent. or more of the spending on CTCs will come from the taxpayer, not from industry. The truth is that the CTC programme is a failure, not because of Labour opposition or the opposition of Labour and Conservative local authorities but because of the opposition of industry. There is no enthusiasm for the scheme. Industry wants the balanced person to whom the Minister referred; and it wants a well-resourced and maintained education system. It wants a system with enough teachers, resources, textbooks and buildings, and it wants an education system and a Government that will start to tackle the problems of the skill shortage in this country.
This Government have failed industry; their policies in education have failed it, too, and we need a great change. Only the Labour party is putting forward the necessary new agenda.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am keeping a keen eye on the clock. Since the debate opened it has become clear that there is considerable interest in it. Had Mr. Speaker been aware of that at the outset it is likely that he would have imposed the ten-minute limit on speeches. I know that he would appreciate it, therefore, if hon. Members would employ some self-discipline. I should like to call a large number of hon. Members and it would help me enormously if that self-discipline were employed and hon. Members chose to speak for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I shall take seriously the suggestion that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have made. I think that the number of Conservative Members present


reflects the concern in the Chamber about this problem. It was clear from the speech by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that there is a great deal of shared ground between the two sides of the House. The difficulty, I suppose, is that we have a different view of the causes of the problem and of the solutions to it. I hope to touch on one or two of these in the short time that I propose to detain the House.
Immediately before entering Parliament I taught in a polytechnic close to this Palace. I was associated with a vocational course. I myself had gone through a fairly traditional university course of three years, at the end of which one might proceed to a professional qualification. However the course on which I taught at the South Bank polytechnic was called a thick sandwich course. The students on it spent three years in college and one year in a professional attachment. The remarkable thing about it was that they spent the first two years gaining basic skills necessary to make the conversion to the world into which they hoped to work. Their third year was spent in the world of business outside the polytechnic, while the fourth was back in the polytechnic putting the final touches to their academic qualifications. That work experience at that age was undoubtedly beneficial and was a formula that might well have been used in other universities. It took the polytechnics to pioneer that sort of vocational training. All this, however, was directed to a professional qualification, as opposed to one for industry, but there are lessons to be learnt from that professional approach in training and education for industry and commerce.
If one thing emerged from my experience in teaching it was that many students with the appropriate grades at A-level arrived on their higher education degree courses without the basic skills of communication, fairly simple numeracy and the literacy with which to express themselves and make it possible for them to communicate professionally and understand the professional instruction that they were required to absorb. So there is a real need to go back a stage before the higher stages of education and specific training for industry, to secondary education and to ensure that the elements in the core curriculum that are important in enabling students to absorb the technical, professional and practical needs of industry are present.
Going back one stage further, we need to ensure that the seeds of good training are sown at the base of our educational system. Our primary and nursery schools must show the way ahead. I well remember going around a nursery school in which I had an interest in placing a child and seeing a purposeful group of children there going about what was referred to not as play but as work. One little scene that attracted my attention was that of a child with a glass and jug. In the jug were beads. The child was pouring the beads from the jug into the glass. Some fell on the floor and were retrieved. I asked the head of the school what was happening and she told me that when the child could pour all the beads into the glass without spilling any he would be able to pour himself a glass of milk from the jug. That was a simple training technique at the early age of three or four. Those were the seeds of education for industry planted at the very beginning of a child's educational career in a school that fostered good motivation. This is not to deny children access to the humanities, the arts and all the other things that we regard as constituting a rounded liberal education.
I agree that motivation in children and parents is important, but I take issue with the remark by the hon.

Member for Leeds, Central that Conservative Members have indulged in a sustained campaign of denigrating the teaching profession. Not so. Conservative Members who have been teachers or who have been involved in education applaud teachers who are doing a good job, but that in no way prevents us from pointing the finger at the ones who are doing a poor job, of which there are some. We must make sure that teachers in our schools are conscious of the importance of education to industry, of industry to our economy and of our economy to our civilisation and way of life. These things are all interlocked. One of the failures in inner London was that many teachers have not been conscious of that fact or, if they have been have deliberately fought against it.
I pay a small tribute at this point to Dulwich college in my constituency, one of the most forward-looking of schools, and to its former master, David Emms, who, long before it became fashionable to talk about industry and education, took the initiative in trying to ensure that the boys in his school who were on an entirely academic course were not unaware of the practical application of that course to the world at large and of the importance of that application to the economy.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my hon Friend agree that some people in the teaching profession have been unnecessarily defensive about legitimate criticism of some of their performance? There is criticism of management, trade unions and of people in all sorts of other careers, and it should be no oddity that criticism is made of teachers when it is justified.

Mr. Bowden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for provoking another line of thought. I shall answer him obliquely. A short time ago I spoke to a headmaster who said that when he was appointed to that post he had had no training for the job. He had been a senior subject teacher and was appointed as headmaster of a large comprehensive school. After his appointment he was lucky to receive a two-week training course in administration. He contrasted his experience with that of his brother or brother-in-law—I forget which—who was in the Army and was destined for promotion from major to lieutenant colonel. That promotion would enable him to take over the running of a signals regiment. He had a two-year training course before taking over the regiment. There is an analogy there that should be followed.
When we require teachers to become managers or heads of school and to become involved in the administrative process of management, which is an industrial concern as well, we must make sure that within the teaching profession there should be a way to allow people to develop the skills that they will require to do a proper job. There can be no criticism of the individual who sometimes fails, but there are grounds for criticism of the system if the procedures I have mentioned are not in place.
I am conscious, Madam Deputy Speaker, of what you said about the pressure of time, but I should like to deal briefly with one other matter. We are all involved in the learning process and in education for industry. I should like to pay tribute to the Industry and Parliament Trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) sees conversion where others would not. I welcome that faith and perception, and can tell him that I am a late convert to the Industry and Parliament Trust; and recently became involved in one of its programmes. The


arrogance or complacency of many of us who opine about industry and commerce without being deeply involved in it has shaken my self-confidence.
I go round factories and I hope that I make the right noises and I am certainly told various things. But it was not until I became involved in a fellowship with the EMAP—the East Midland Allied Press, through the good offices of Sir Frank Rogers, who suggested that I might learn something by looking at its operation, that I realised how far industry has moved on from the time when I first had close connections with it. It is important for us to recognise that there is no training for life, but there is training for a phase of employment. Throughout industrial life there is a retraining process during which one re-equips oneself to deal with the challenges of new technology, new industrial demands and new management techniques.
I am conscious, as are all hon. Members, that we have no life tenure in Parliament. We might have to retrain at any time for other careers. There is a need in the country, in industry and in the teaching profession to be prepared to accept that we all may need to be retrained for industry. It is a continuing process involving not only children at school or people in higher education but all hon. Members and everyone in industry. We must respond to the challenge by being prepared to retrain and re-educate ourselves.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Bearing in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, your strictures about time I do not propose to deal with the arguments by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) or to reiterate any of the fine points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). I should like to take part in the debate for two simple reasons. First, the north-west, the region in which my constituency is based, is an industrial area and always has been. Secondly, before I was elected to the House I worked in industry on a production line on a continental shift system which meant changing shifts every three days. Therefore, I know a little about industry.
The Minister spoke about some of the problems in education and in industry. I had hoped for some insight into how we might set up a system that encourages people to the view that a job in industry, in management, supervision or working on the production line, is important to Britain and that we want people to do those jobs. There is a tendency for people to say not that their daughter should not go on the stage, but that their children should not go to work in a factory. They apply that attitude to management, supervisors and to people working on the production line. That is appalling because industry is of basic importance to Britain.
I do not deride the importance of invisible exports such as banking, insurance or tourism, but at the end of the day our bread and butter and Britain's future depends on a strong manufacturing base. Our industry needs to succeed and must export a far higher proportion of goods than it is able to do at present. Our balance of payments must be improved. The key thing to say to people with ability who are looking for jobs is that if they want to enter management it is good to go into industry. There are also good jobs to be had in supervision and people are needed on production lines.
We must change the concept in industry of a difference between so-called white collar staff and blue collar hourly paid workers. That concept still exists in many industries. I worked for the large multinational Philips group and in our factory all the workers were on staff conditions. When I was a shop steward and involved in negotiations I always recognised that a cleaner was just as important as management to the running of the factory. Everyone working together ensured the success of the factory. We must ensure that people working in factories are not treated as second-class citizens and we must change the attitude that people earning hourly pay are only doing so because they cannot get another job. I do not look at it in that way.
I should like to refer to a letter, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who has just left the Chamber will have received a copy. It is a letter from Mr. David Tinniswood. I received a copy this week and a copy has also gone to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. It is a copy of a letter sent to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment. Mr. Tinniswood is an education and industry liaison officer and has offices in the Pendle constituency. His letter deals with the subject that we are debating. In his letter to me Mr. Tinniswood says:
North East Lancashire has gained a national reputation for linking education and industry in a very meaningful way but the continuance of this work could be under threat in the near future if some satisfactory method of funding this work cannot be found.
If that is correct, it could threaten the purpose and function of the issue that we are debating today. I hope that the point will be looked at.
Mr. Tinniswood says that his post, which he has held for six years, is on a secondment basis, and because of the threat to local government funding, the county council is not able to make it into a permanent post. He says that three Cabinet Ministers recently launched the Department of Trade and Industry business and education initiative, a launch which he attended, and at which the work done by his section of the education department was recognised. Despite that, his job is in jeopardy. He continues:
Presently I am heavily engaged in delivering an effective cross-curricular education/industry policy within the National Curriculum, managing the education team preparing the Blackburn Compact and actively involved in meeting the targets set for us in the Business and Education Initiative.
At the end of his letter, he says that he believes that this problem could be solved by a special education support grant to ensure that such a function can be maintained.
This work is a good example of what can be done to develop links between industry and education. It is important to ensure that such exercises in other sectors do not fail. I was involved in the preparation of the bid by Burnley for a compact. It was unsuccessful, and I accept that, because of the deprivation criteria, Blackburn may have had a better case than Burnley. However, we shall continue to go for it, because we do not accept that no as a final answer.
Even if we have the right education for children who leave the education system at 18, 19 or even later, we have to recognise that with the changes in society and industry, brought about by automation and other developments that need to be introduced, if we are to compete in the market place, people will not remain in the same job all


their lives. Much will change, and I hope that we shall provide for those who will have to go in and out of education and training at various stages in their lives. We have to ensure that when people do such education and training, whether they are men or women, they must be able to do so without suffering financial difficulties. I have dealt with a number of cases recently where this has not happened. For example, a woman received a grant for retraining, but that affected her husband's benefit, which was a deterrent to going back to education. In another case, benefit was stopped while somebody underwent a short training course. How such people are expected to live, I do not know.
We must make available education and training opportunities throughout people's working lives as well as in the early school leaving period. That is crucial. Furthermore, the Government have to accept that the man or woman going back into education or training must be able to maintain their standard of life so that they and their families do not suffer poverty or deprivation as a result. This is an important debate, but I am aware of the constraints of time. I am sure that other hon. Members will add other important issues at which we shall be looking.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Whatever the criticisms from parents, students, employees, teachers or politicians, I believe that we can stand proud of the record of what our universities, polytechnics and other institutes of education can do and are doing. Britain must live by her wits. Leading industrialists look to those educational institutions, particularly those in further education, as sources of able, well-qualified and adaptable young people who can keep up with, influence and lead the ever-changing economic, social, political and technological world in which we live.
As change is part of educational life, it is healthy that the curriculum is being reappraised. It must be healthy that centres of excellence are being identified, built up and expanded, that the performance of both academic and administrative staff is better appraised and recognised, that higher students standards are being encouraged, and that more and better bridges are being built between the world at work and the world at study. This includes liason between schools and businesses, technology transfers, co-operative provision of services on and off campuses, encouragement of out-of-work and teach-in opportunities and a far closer relationship between educational institutions and particularly between universities and polytechnics, which are breaking down the historic barriers of yesteryear and drawing together complementary skills for the benefit of teachers, students and industry alike.
That is not to say that all that is beautiful has to be big, even though there is a case for rationalising provision for some kinds of expensive scientific research on an international as well a national basis. For instance, at Sussex university, part of which is in my constituency, the vice-chancellor pointed out at the annual meeting of court earlier this year that there is a group in physics made up of just two members of faculty. However, this group has been awarded hundreds of thousands of pounds of research grants; has established research collaboration with the high resolution electron microscopy facility at Arizona state university, where one of the group is a visiting

professor; and, very importantly, has built up close working links with a number of industrial companies manufacturing scientific instruments near the university.
Flexibility must be the password to future success in education as in business. Universities will have to co-operate more with local institutions to develop pre-university foundation and preparatory courses tailored to the new demands of degree courses. Also at Sussex university, the school of engineering and applied science has set up a linked scheme with local technical and sixth form colleges to give potential engineering students specialist training in mathematics and physics and areas of expertise not covered by their colleges.
Degree programmes will have to become more flexible, with increasing acceptance of credit transfers, so that a degree may be fashioned out of compilation courses, sometimes taken at a number of different institutions and at different times—a point made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)—and joint degrees must be developed. We must make an even greater contribution to, and seek ever increasing numbers of people—teachers and students—from overseas universities, particularly within Europe, and we must also allow credit transfers and split and joint degree schemes with them. As degrees and the work leading up to them become more career-relevant, so our universities and polytechnics must prepare provision for mid-career training, with short and part-time courses to update those in professional and technical employment.
As our developed nation and world becomes ever more interdependent with developing nations, we must build stronger educational links with those nations and encourage more and better students from those areas to create a more advanced, better integrated and more extensive information and communications environment throughout the international academic community.
I should like to say a special word about our Open university, which has only slightly fewer than 200,000 students this year and 100,000 graduates to its credit. It is extremely successful, with an established high reputation among students, employers and academics. It will be needed more than ever in the future as either a first-chance or second-chance provider of further education. It claims, with justification, to offer the most cost-effective source of training, retraining and reskilling. Over recent years, it has increased its efficiency, reduced its costs and improved markedly its entrepreneurial earnings from other sources. However, it is now facing such financial pressures that its educational programmes are at risk and soon it may not be able to meet its charter obligations. Therefore, I plead for increased block grant to match more closely the far higher inflation within and across all its cost factors than is found in the country generally. The need for the Open university's special qualities has never been greater. It deserves our proud and realistic support.
Another educational initiative which is especially pertinent to today's debate, and one which comes from outside the formal education system is Education for Capability, which is administered by the RSA, the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. It is based on the belief that a well balanced education should embrace analysis and the acquisition of knowledge, but must also include the exercise of creative skills; the competence to undertake and complete tasks, the ability to cope with everyday life and the ability to do all those things in co-operation with others.
The aim of Education for Capability is to encourage and develop in people four capacities that are currently too often under-emphasised in our education system. The first is to improve competence by the practice of skills and the use of knowledge. The second is to enable students to cope better with their own lives and the problems that confront them and society. The third is to develop the students' creative abilities. Above all, the fourth aim is to enable students to co-operate with other people in those capacities. It is those four capacities which Education for Capability is designed to encourage and develop.
New projects are started every year. Three have been launched in 1988—on effective learning, practice and management, on learning by experience in further education, and on higher education for capability. The projects are funded by foundations and trusts, public companies and the Training Commission, but there is still a shortfall for the first of the three years of the programmes, and considerably more money is needed to meet costs during the second and third years. Any encouragement that my hon. Friend the Minister can give, either with funding or to help attract further funding, will be most welcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) mentioned the education requirements and the importance of education at the other end of the education spectrum—the importance of practical and useful learning at the early stage, in nursery school. Nursery schools are the overlooked and often forgotten cornerstone of all other learning and all other life. I hope that the House may have an opportunity to return to that subject and to debate it in depth at some future date, as there is not the time to go into it this morning.
We must remember that the seeds of the industrial revolution can be found in the universities of the renaissance. Together, industry, the universities, polytechnics, colleges and other educational institutions could today make history repeat itself. That is what this important debate is really about. I should like to end by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister for instigating it and for his continued interest in this subject—more strength to his elbow.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Without doubt this is a debate on one of the most challenging topics of our generation. It is even more crucial in the light of the fact that there will be 25 per cent. fewer school leavers in 1993 than this year.
We in Wales—I recognise that I carry a heavy responsibility today as I am the only Member from Wales present to participate in the debate—consider that proper education and training for our children and young people is essential to protect our communities from massive rural depopulation. We understand that a diverse, vibrant and healthy local economy depends on a well educated and properly trained work force and on young people being sufficiently motivated to set up in business and commerce.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) refer to certain skills shortages in some of the industries in his constituency. During the summer recess, I visited several factories and workplaces in my constituency and found a similar problem there. There

is now a considerable lack of skills in some areas. The harsh and unpalatable reality is that jobs remain unfilled simply because some skills are not available locally.
I hasten to add that the vast majority of employers wish to recruit from within the locality; they know that, if they can do that, prospective employees will have a commitment to the area and to the industry. People from outside often see jobs purely and simply in terms of career development. Clearly, there will be occasions when it is not possible to recruit locally, and of necessity people must be brought in from outside the area. However, where it is possible for us to find properly skilled people within the locality, my experience is that employers prefer that course.
The problem is that companies which are large enough to have their own training resources do their training without anybody else's assistance because they have the expertise. The companies that lose in areas of skills shortages are the ones which are too small to have training resources. They therefore go without the skills which are necessary to enable them to develop. The Government must take that issue seriously.
Our communities are under threat in rural Wales, mainly because our economic base is weak and we face challenges from wealthier regions especially the south-east of England and the midlands. In the past 18 months, that has led to pressures on house prices, which have recently been pushed up and which have exploded out of the reach of local people, especially young people.
One way in which we could meet that challenge is to ensure that schools and colleges of further education give young people every opportunity to go into industry and commerce, and that they encourage them to do so. In the past, there has been reluctance in rural Wales even to regard a career in industry as an option. We must change that attitude if we are to succeed in the task of maintaining a decent standard of living and thus our community life and values, and if we are to defeat the real scourges of rural deprivation, unemployment and depopulation.
I am pleased that the links between schools and industry are developing in Gwynedd and that the local education authority has appointed an education-industry liaison officer to forge even closer links. All sides agree that even more should be done, so in September I launched an initiative entitled Menter Môn or Anglesey Action, which was aimed at improving links between education and industry. The launch was attended by local industrialists, representatives of the Welsh Development Agency and the Wales tourist board, the Gwynedd county council director of education, the education-industry liaison officer and representatives of the economic development department of the borough and county councils.
Due to the initiative's early success in its approach, concrete follow-up initiatives are planned. These will include increasing the number of visits to factories and industrial plants by schoolchildren, better liaison—that is vital—between careers masters and schools and industry, setting up specific projects in schools that are aimed at creating a greater awareness among children of industry and commerce, and creating links between schools and specific industries in their areas.
I realise that industry's recent interest in education and training is not entirely benevolent or altruistic. Industrialists realise that competition for recruits will be fierce in the next decade, and accordingly they are busy offering sponsorships and grants to potential recruits in


our schools. A recent BBC "Panorama" programme highlighted the Compact scheme in London, in which companies target schoolchildren and offer them job prospects at an early age. This is happening because of the reduction in the number of 16-year-olds in the next five years.
Experience and research has shown that contact between schools and industry is patchy. A survey undertaken by Booz, Allen and Hamilton, which was reported in the Financial Times, examined the experience of more than 1,500 secondary schools, almost 1,000 companies and more than 80 education authorities. It found that almost 40 per cent. of schools and 54 per cent. of businesses lack regular links. Only one in five pupils has sustained contact with business, and only a very few have an understanding of small businesses in rural areas. It is significant that schools reported that only 16 per cent. of them had links with companies with fewer than 50 employees.
Some teachers are now being seconded to industry to develop links. This is only partial, however, and the experience that is gained benefits very few. The report of Her Majesty's inspectors on a survey of enterprise, education and school-industry links in Wales referred to statistics:
These figures, however, require careful interpretation because in many schools only a small number of pupils and teachers are involved. Activities may only involve one particular course, or may be restricted to the work of one dept. In these schools the mainstream curriculum is often largely uninfluenced by industrial contacts and the schemes of work in the major subject areas make little reference to applications which could enrich and provide relevance to the learning.
That report suggests that there is a long way to go.
Local technical colleges have an important role to play in preparing young people for careers in industry. I congratulate Coleg Pencraig, the technical college in my constituency, on the steps that it has taken. It has set up courses to meet the changing demands of local industry, including the tourist industry. Even more important, it has entered into a joint enterprise initiative with the WDA that is aimed at encouraging young people to set up in business on their own. It is attempting to tackle the problems that that entails.
Careers teachers in schools work in extremely difficult conditions. On the one hand, they are the vital link between a pupil and his or her career, yet on the other they often lack the time, the resources and the experience to undertake the task successfully. Proper training and resources for careers teachers, and an appreciation of the work that they do, is a top priority. Proper guidance for pupils at the ages of 14 and 15 years, not in my view at 16, 17 and 18, is crucial for their career prospects. Careers teachers should improve the links between their schools and industry. There should be greater liaison between training officers in industry and careers teachers. Seminars should be organised so that they can understand one another better.
We must understand also that there are strains in the relationships between schools and industrialists. We must be wary, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Noth-West (Dr. Hampson) said, of industrialists who see education merely as a vehicle to provide them with a properly trained work force. Education must and should mean more than that. Schools prepare people for jobs, of course, but they have

the wider responsibility. The National Union of Teachers' document entitled "Better Schools: an alternative view", states:
But to see education as the instrument to fulfil the industrial and economic needs of the country is to regard individuals only in terms of socio-economic roles and the education service as an agency to satisfy the Government's manpower plans.
I accept that there must be a balance, but we must be wary that it is not tilted too much to one side.
We must increase links between education and industry. We shall then be preparing the ground for a better balanced economy. There are increasing pressures on the economy of rural Wales, and I warn the House that we are finding them difficult to resist. One way of easing the pressures is to make the local economy more resilient. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, inward investment was seen as the answer to rural unemployment and depopulation. The recession in the 1980s proved that to be a flawed theory. We must rebuild our economy in large part from within and through greater economic success, and that will be done partly through education and training. We can thereby preserve our communities and enable our language, culture and traditions to flourish anew.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: ; I know that Friday is a day for a friendly debate, but I must express surprise at the unevenness of attendance when comparison is made between the number of my hon. Friends who are in their places and the few Labour Members who are in theirs. The minority parties are doing a relatively and proportionately better job than the Labour party in representing those for whom they speak. It is not surprising that official Opposition spokesmen have been seen outside the Chamber trying to find some more Labour Members to fill the Opposition Benches. There are five hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, and when I last made a count there were 16 Conservative Members.

Mr. Richard Page: I beg my hon. Friend not to try to rustle up more Labour Members. If they are brought into the Chamber, some Conservative Members will not be able to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Thurnham: Given the pressure of time, I shall follow Gladstone's example with speeches and taxis, and I shall content myself with a reference to Disraeli, who said over 100 years ago that it was upon the education of the people of this country that the fate of the country would depend.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his success in securing this debate and on being appointed a Minister at the Department of Education and Science. I cannot think of a better person to be so appointed. He will be able to make a unique contribution, with the knowledge of industry that he gained before coming to the House and his experience as a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry.
We and industry wish to see a much greater spirit of competition in our schools, but it is clear that the Labour party is afraid of that. The Labour party is frightened by the idea of competition. The idea of the skills Olympics, for example, must be abhorrent to it. We need the spirit of


competition, and it is fortunate that the Government are taking initiatives that will allow schools to opt out of the suffocating, monopolistic control of local authorities.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister had a chance to hear the most excellent appeal on the radio this morning from the parents and chairman of governors of St. James Church of England school in Bolton. They desperately hope that they can opt out of the control of the local authority which is not only suffocating the school, but killing it. The authority wants to close that excellent school. The school is not in my constituency, but many of my constituents have approached me about it, because they are worried about developments.
I should like to think that my hon. Friend the Minister will give every consideration to the school's appeal to opt out. The parent who spoke at the end of the programme, Mr. John Waith, made an important point when he said that he wanted to see the school become the best in Bolton. He followed the council spokesman who said that all schools in Bolton were equal. That is the precise difference in spirit which is so inhibiting the competition that we want. That is the way Opposition Members like to see things. We want competition between schools and more competition within schools to encourage the very best to come forward so that when people enter industry they have a strong spirit of competition.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) referred to Japan where more 16-year-olds remain at school. The whole thrust of the Japanese education system is to encourage the spirit of competition. Children are encouraged to have extra lessons after school to improve and enhance their performance in competition with each other to get into the best college or university. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to do all in his power to increase the spirit of competition and allow local authority schools to opt out of the suffocating control of local authorities and so proceed on their own to show how well they can perform.

Mr. Frank Haynes: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) to the Dispatch Box in his new position as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. He was at the Department of Trade and Industry, but now he is responsible for a certain section of education. Hon. Members have referred to the way in which education and industry should be working together in the interests of children and the economy. This nation is very important to all of us.
There would appear to be a number of teachers on the Conservative Benches although I do not mean the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) whom I have woken up. The teachers on the Conservative Benches know what education is all about. The Conservative party has been in power for nearly 10 years and it has failed the education and training system. Conservative Members should be ashamed of themselves.
I know that one or two hon. Members have a particular interest in youngsters who have left school, but have not had a real opportunity in education. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and I have tried to help those people by setting up an all-party group for adult

education. We believe that we achieved a fair amount of success. We visited different places to see how the system worked and how we in the House could help. I am grateful for the guidance that I received from the hon. Member for Ealing, North, and I acknowledge his great experience in education—[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) keeps saying "Hear hear." He and I often have a natter about things. One of the things that we talk about is the education of our children in preparation for when they leave school to enter industry. We firmly believe that the youngsters of this nation should have a first-class opportunity to prepare for work.
In the past nine or 10 years the education system has been failed. There are schools in my constituency where the conditions are atrocious. We must start with the provision of education and all that goes with it, and go right through to when children leave school and start a job. Schools in my constituency are in a terrible state, but I praise to the hilt the Nottinghamshire county council education committeee for its work over many years. However, its work has been held back because of the cuts in education finance in my county. The education committe wants to do the right thing, but is denied the opportunity because the finance is not available. I hope that the Minister will help to ensure that money is available for forward-looking education authorities that want to do the right things—the things that we believe should be happening in the interests of school children, but are not happening.
I recognise the dedication of teachers to education. I heard serious criticisms from Conservative Members about the education system and the quality of teaching. I am proud that my children are teaching. I am proud that they have degrees, one in languages, a subject which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) gave a right good going over. I believe that my family has played a part in the system. However, many families are playing a part, but do not receive the leadership that they need from the Government on education and training.
I hear a lot of technical jargon about education. I want to talk about basic and important things because the technical jargon follows on after that. We must have the right things at the beginning before we can talk about what should be happening. I did not get a real chance in education. I was born with a shovel in my hand and I took it to the pit for 35 years. However, I received an educational opportunity from a nationalised industry which allowed me to go back to school and get certain qualifications. I am proud that that industry gave me that opportunity, but it taught me a lesson. I did not have those opportunities way back in the 1930s when I was a kid. We have a real responsibility now for our nation's children. Over the past 10 years we have criticised what has been happening and we are still arguing about it.
Firms in my constituency are squealing out for skilled persons. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central gave that a good bouncing. Yes, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth can have a nice big grin on his face; indeed he always has one there. However, firms are squealing out for skilled people and we are not providing them. I will tell you a very brief story, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope it is brief.

Mr. Haynes: The local district council in Ashfield is a first-class local authority. As a result of the squealing from local industry about the lack of youngsters from school with computer experience, the authority decided that it could have a go at trying to fill the gap and provide skilled people for local industry. What did it do? It cadged £35,000 worth of obsolete equipment which could be used for its purposes. It will provide a building to house the kids and equipment. We applied to the Department of Employment for financial assistance because Ashfield district council is really pushing the boat out. What happened? There have been letters going back and forth, but no way is the Department saying that it will provide money and help with the problem. I keep having to bang on the Minister's door and try to wake him up.
The finance required is not a great amount. Its importance is that it will give some kids an opportunity, so that after leaving school they can obtain training and then get a job somewhere. Still the Secretary of State for Employment will not cough up the money that is needed.
I make another plea. It is about the only thing that I can do. I am sick of writing letters. Here I am, appealing on the Floor of this Chamber, in the hope that the Minister will listen seriously and himself knock on the door of the Department of Employment and wake it up—because the people there are half asleep. They want telling in no uncertain terms that we need that help.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke about his son losing one day's education. The Conservatives have been in office for nearly 10 years, and their policy has caused the loss of more than one day's education over that period, because of the awkwardness of the Treasury Bench. The hon. Member for Banbury wags his head, but unless the Treasury Bench and the Secretary of State for Education and Science get themselves and the education system sorted out in the interests of the children, there will be more problems in the future. The teachers have had a bellyful.

Mr. Baldry: rose—

Mr. Haynes: No, time is time.
Head teachers are sick to death of being told that they must be accountants. They have been trained to teach and not to serve as accountants. One of my hon. Friends was right to speak about teacher shortages. Teachers are being driven away because of the Government's damned education policy. We ought to be pulling in the specialist teachers on all subjects in the curriculum. I mentioned computing, but mathematics also comes into it. We need more help from the Government. I hope that the debate will give youngsters more opportunity, for it is they upon whom we shall be depending in the future. We have played our part. I am nearing retirement. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) spoke of training for another career. I stand here going on for 63, and I am training myself for retirement.
The important point is that we must look after our youngsters and industry. That is what we are supposed to be doing, and I hope that we shall have some success as a result of this debate.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this important debate. As one of the ex-teachers on the Government

Benches, I was interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I can at least share his passion for education, even if I do not agree with all his conclusions. It was a little unwise of him to refer to the education record of the various political parties. I remember being a teacher in the early 1960s, at a time when the Labour party did grievous damage to the education system from which we are still, in many ways, trying to recover.

Mr. Haynes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what we did?

Mr. Thompson: I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's stress on the importance of this debate.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) was able to speak, because he is one of the members of the parliamentary group for engineering development. Earlier this year, this House had a debate on engineering. I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his new appointment, and I am also pleased that he is replying to this debate. I recall very well him taking part in our earlier excellent engineering debate on 11 March.
My speech will be briefer than it might otherwise have been because many of the points made in that debate by hon. Members present today and by others are totally relevant to the subject we are now discussing. I refer, for example, to the importance of being able to compete with Europe and elsewhere as we approach 1992. There is also the importance of improving our attitudes to industry, which are still not right. That point was stressed in the engineering debate.
Mention has been made time and time again by speakers on both sides of the House of skills shortages. There is no doubt that industry and business face a major crisis, and I am delighted that that issue has been raised today, as it was during our engineering debate earlier this year. In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) was long on identifying the problems that exist. I agree with much of his analysis, but he was not quite so long on the question of policy. That is a difficulty in which the Labour party often finds itself. When it comes to deciding what should be their education policies, I do not find them anything like so convincing, but I do not have time to develop that theme.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) in his remarks about the Industry and Parliament Trust. I have also been involved in that organisation, having recently done an attachment. Many of the points made in this debate are supported by the experience of those who have been on attachment to industrial firms, and I confirm my hon. Friend's remarks. I welcome the Government's initiatives in respect of education and industry. I refer, for example, to the technical and vocational education initiative, the certificate of pre-vocational education, the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, and to the many initiatives for better links between schools and industry. I welcome them and congratulate the Government on taking the matter so seriously.
Recently, a number of reports, articles and pamphlets on this subject have been published. I refer in particular to the School Curriculum Industries Partnership report, to a recent CBI report, and to a recent pamphlet from the Conservative Bow Group. They all highlight continuing


concern among business men and others about education. The message coming through, if I may attempt to encapsulate it, is that they are agreed that we need a good education system if industry is successfully to compete, and that education should be given the Government's highest priority. I am able to congratulate the Government on having given education a high priority in the 1980s, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do all that he can to ensure that it continues to enjoy a high priority and may even be given a higher priority in future.
In the surveys to which I refer, business men agreed that the United Kingdom's education performance is poor compared with that of our competitors, and that we are sadly deficient in providing basic educational standards. Hon. Members may have seen recent surveys published in the tabloid press and elsewhere, suggesting that Britons are dunces and that A-level candidates cannot write good English. Even taking account of the exaggeration in which the media so often indulges, there is enough truth in those reports for us all to be concerned and to share the worries that industry and commerce have in that respect.
There is a mismatch somewhere between the needs and beliefs of people in business and industry and the beliefs and statements of those involved in education. If only we can bring those two groups together so that there will not appear to be some kind of warring between them, we would make much more progress. After all, I know that business people share the ideals of educationists; they also believe that young people should have a full and broad education, and should not just be "educated for a job". There is not really a difference, and it is wrong to imply that there is antagonism between the parties involved.
We all believe in a good education for its own sake, but it is also true that industrialists are frustrated by some of the attitudes of educationists. According to one, we must stop producing 50 social scientists for one job while we are able to produce only one production engineer for every 50 jobs, and that encapsulates the frustration felt by industry.
Those involved in education, head teachers and others—I am speaking now about my own profession—should try harder in their public statements to be positive about what they can offer industry. They should perhaps—I choose my words with care—spend a little less time talking about the current political issues that may face education attacking some aspects of the Education Reform Bill with which they are not particularly happy, or discussing teachers' pay. All those things are important, but I should like to hear my old profession speak more about its positive ideas for education and the way in which it can help industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) was right to say that the teaching profession had been a little over-sensitive recently. This country has a high regard for the profession. Why does it not capitalise on that? Let its members criticise the Government by all means, but let them also spend more time emphasising the positive aspects of what they can do.
I realise that I shall not be able to say much more in the time available, but I should like to mention one initiative promoting school-industry links—the engineering education scheme. I was lucky enough to attend the awards presentation at the Institution of Civil Engineers this summer, and I also went to a school in my constituency,

Hellesdon high school, which was placed second in Norfolk. This is one of many excellent schemes involving closer links between industry and schools. The only warning that I would give my hon. Friend the Minister is that I have read recently in the press that there is a risk of our having almost too many initiatives, and that confusion is beginning to sweep in. I should be grateful if the Minister could embark on a programme of rationalisation to emphasise the more important initiatives.
I had wanted to spend some time commending and supporting Government policy and actions in both education and trade and industry. It is, in a sense, symbolic that my hon. Friend the Minister is present, because the link between the two is important. I shall, however, conclude by saying merely that there is a need for a revolution in our attitudes towards industry and education. Despite what has been said, it is generally agreed not only that more commitment is needed from industry, but that even more commitment is required from the Government. What we are discussing this morning is critical to the country's future.
Compared with the records of many other countries—I particularly cite Japan and France, because I have been studying them in the past few days—ours is still not good enough. Much more needs to be done, and I hope that we shall all work together to see that it is done—for the good of our young people, and for the good of the country.

Mr. David Madel:: Let me first join hon. Members on both sides of the House in welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to his new responsibilities. The fact that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Education and Science are coming closer together on this issue makes his move appropriate. The background to our debate is the changing attitude to industry—skills, profits and an appreciation of how vital commercial success is for this country.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) mentioned education maintenance allowances. I take it that when he talked about security he meant financial security for the family. That is a challenge to the Government to make imaginative use of the family credit scheme, the income support scheme or child benefit so that young people from homes with modest means are not deterred from staying at school.
As has already been pointed out, every month brings us closer to 1992 and all that it can mean to our country's commercial success. The first problem is how to define more closely what industry wants from the education service. That does not apply only to school leavers; it is relevant throughout the various stages of craft technician and higher technician, and to the recruitment of graduates and postgraduates.
When it is better established and understood, the national curriculum should go a long way towards meeting industry's basic requirements, provided that we can get the right number of teachers in mathematics, science and technical subjects, where shortages are now appearing. That will require new and imaginative thinking between the Department and industry. We must also look thoroughly and sensibly at what our EEC partners can do to help.
Technology has an important part to play in the new curriculum, but education through technology is more important than education in technology. Education through technology can stimulate the pupil's interest and convince him or her of the relevance of what he or she is learning.
Many useful changes have occurred in higher and further education with the growth of partnership modes and schemes. But we now need more meaningful working partnerships, not only involving the top echelons of technological and scientific thought but enabling line managers and supervisors to become more closely involved with the education system. Technical college staff need to be given industrial roles, not only as observers but as participants and workers—say for a three or four-month period.
Education has made a big effort to get its people into the world of work, but the flow from industry into education has been very small. The Government should be thinking—especially as the Chancellor is months away from his 1989 Budget—about a scheme whereby secondment from industry to education would carry some tax advantage for both the company and the individual—a change in corporation tax, a training allowance or a change in national insurance charges and contributions. Now is the time for us to make such suggestions, before the Chancellor goes into purdah.
There is, of course, the problem of small businesses. Because of the welcome Government support with which my hon. Friend the Minister has been so much involved, the growth in such businesses has been rapid, but their success depends largely on how quickly they can respond to perceived market needs. We now need a better framework of continued support for the more established small company. The needs of small businesses arise at fairly short notice and need a rapid response. I hope that the Training Commission can assist by deploying specific funds to sustain the small business beyond the start-up period, so that the employees at last have secure employment.
The construction industry has established many links with technical colleges, and it knows what it wants. Because expansion has finally come about, people who have training in construction can now get jobs, but the demands on the industry are increasing. We need a new mechanism for the colleges that are trying to help to enable them to seek central support, so that they can do more to help the industry and all that goes with it—electrical maintenance, and electrical installations and all the other aspects that are so important to an industry which is at last showing a real increase in the number of people it can employ.
Let me briefly make three final points. First, a major worry for the Government is the number of engineering graduates who do not go into the engineering industry, and I think that the time is ripe for some deep research into that. Secondly, there is need to maximise the number of academics who know and regularly talk to people in industry, and vice versa.
Thirdly, industry must keep a constant check on how much training is done by industry itself in our major competitor countries and how much of an advantage over us that gives to competitor countries. They are often doing more training, through industry doing it itself. I refer not just to shop floor training overseas but to the training of

top management throughout the company—from the company chairman right down, through the employees, to those who work on the factory floor.
The debate points to the need for this country to widen rapidly its industrial base by 1992. That is essential for employment. Moreover, by having a wider and more effective industrial base we shall be able to keep state spending at a level that is sensible and thoroughly beneficial to all those who need help from the state. They will be unable to get that help if we do not have a prosperous industry and a thoroughly modern and responsive education system.

12 noon

Mr. Mark Wolfson: First may I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I am mindful of your direction that speeches should be short. Your intervention this morning had the support of all hon. Members. In that context, I pay a particular tribute to the Labour party for so obviously staying away from the debate and for giving those who sit on the Government side of the House the opportunity to be called. We are extremely grateful to it.
I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities and I echo what has been said by my hon. Friends, who support his appointment to his new job. We shall value the experience and interest that he brings to it, from both a professional and a ministerial point of view.
The debate takes place against the background of a dramatic fall in the number of school leavers. It provides a major opportunity for the education service to meet the needs of industry and commerce that are more important than ever before. In addition, it will increase the opportunities that are available to young people. When they leave school and go out into the world their skills and attributes will be much needed.
As has been said by so many speakers in the debate, "skills" is the key word. Those who are facing long-term unemployment lack the skills that are relevant today. There is universal acceptance in the House that the highest priority has to be given to the development of the skills of those who are going through the education system now so as to enable them to continue to be employed throughout their working lives, even in a world of rapid and continuing change. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) said that there should be no argument about the different desires of the educationist and of the industrialist. Industrialists are looking not for factory fodder, but for well-rounded, thinking people with initiative, whose approach to their work is positive and who, through their abilities, will be able to ensure that they have a full and satisfying life at work. The educationist, too, wants individuals to develop in such a way as to make the fullest contribution that they can to a satisfying life both at home and at work.
A good education will benefit both the potential employer and the individual. During the last few years the education system has failed to deliver, after they leave school, young people who are able to carry out the work that employers offer to them. We have heard about the skills shortage. We have also heard about the lack of application and of the unrealistic views that some young people have about work. Young people need to be reliable, to be prepared to take responsibility and to be consistent in what they offer on a day-to-day basis at work. Family


and schools have to bear in mind that it is important to instil in young people a sense of responsibility and knowledge about what the world of work involves.
In the teeth of a good deal of educational and political opposition, the Government have set out on a long and difficult road with the aim of achieving an education system that will be much more in line with the lifestyle and the skill needs of the world of today and tomorrow. Their initiatives have been welcomed by parents, who have never been very enthusiastic about the unrealistic philosophy of certain parts of the teaching profession during the last 20 years.
To give an example, some teachers have adopted a defensive approach to appraisal. It astonishes me that teachers should be so unhappy and that they should resist appraisal systems. They are used in the Civil Service, the services and in industry and commerce, and also to a very great degree in another caring profession about which I know a good deal. I refer to social workers. My wife is a social worker. Many teachers argue that they belong to a caring profession and that their job cannot be appraised, but the basis of competency in social work is based on appraisal. That appraisal is very tightly done and is carried our regularly.
Appraisal has existed for many years. That does not mean that difficulties do not arise in the profession or that problems do not occur, but appraisal is fully accepted as part of the job. Promotion depends upon appraisal. Why, therefore, should teachers resist appraisal? I am pleased that constructive and positive appraisal of teachers' work is now being carried out in many schools. It will help teachers to further their careers.
Some of the Government's initiatives that will lead to higher standards in schools and colleges bear specifically on industry's needs. Numeracy, literacy and scientific knowledge have been well covered this morning but I wish to refer to another factor that relates specifically to the opportunities that are open to young people.
Schools should ensure that youngsters have the ability and confidence to be articulate. If we compare the articulate ability of British and American children leaving school, we find that there is a great difference between them. The education that we provide in other areas can be well ahead of that provided in the United States, but that does not necessarily apply to articulacy. I hope that the education service will pay attention to that problem. It is particularly important that less well-favoured young people should be able clearly to argue their case. Their ability to put over what they mean is important when they are answering the telephone at work or making a sales contact, and in their relationships with other people.
I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on the shortage of teachers of science, mathematics and physics. What action do the Government intend to take to overcome that difficulty? One of the suggestions that has been advanced today is regional pay. Another may be higher incentive payments to teachers in short supply. The stronger our economy gets, the greater will be the opportunities outside teaching for people to earn high salaries. The Government must bear that in mind more closely.
Language teaching is another area of shortage. If ever there was a need for young people in Britain to be able to

speak one or two foreign languages, it is now. We shall be left far behind in trade with the rest of the world if we do not overcome this problem. We spend as long at school studying a foreign language as young people in other countries, but whereas they come out speaking English, for example, fluently, our young people leave school having spent as many hours supposedly learning a language yet unable to speak it. That is not just the result of British reticence—it is partly the way in which languages are taught.
I appeal to the Department of Education and Science and ask what action Ministers can take to demand of universities that they give a much higher priority in examinations—60 or 70 per cent. of the marks—to oral ability in a foreign language rather than written work and grammar. If universities made that fundamental change, school examining boards would rapidly follow, and teachers would follow. The result would be a major change in school leavers' ability to converse in a foreign language. The ability to converse must be the priority. If people can first talk in a foreign language, they will later learn to read it in newspapers or technical papers. People need the incentive to speak it, however, and what I have suggested is the most practical way forward.

Mr. James Pawsey: I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said about business and industry looking not for factory fodder but for a more developed individual. That is a pertinent point to which I may refer later if time allows.
I listened to all of the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), which was rather more difficult than it sounds. I agreed with at least one part of it, however—his reference to my hon. Friend the Minister, whom we warmly welcome. He will bring a great deal to our discussions on education.
In the past, schools and industry have operated in almost separate vacuum packs and the attitude to industry was almost one of take it or leave it, but it seems to me and, I believe, many other hon. Members that education is too important to be left to the educationists. Industry has a clear right to make a contribution which must be heard.
It is clear from the Confederation of British Industry's report that while business expects a certain amount of cultural knowledge among school leavers, more important are what it describes as relevant skills such as skills in numeracy and literacy and in the use of screens and keyboards—the basic life skills. The CBI says in its excellent report that schools have concentrated too much on pure knowledge and not enough on developing children's talents and abilities. The report was right to remind us that 40 per cent. of engineers' knowledge is outdated within three years.
That message is at last beginning to get through to schools. I am delighted at the number of current initiatives to promote the very qualities that the CBI regards as desirable in a work force. School-industry links now exist in many parts of the United Kingdom. Such schemes provide an opportunity for teachers to discover what takes place in industry. It also gives business an opportunity to see what is taught in Britain's schools and to understand the difficulties that teachers sometimes encounter when trying to educate today's youngsters. Each side is given a better understanding of what the other is trying to do.
Teachers are being seconded to industry and, as a result of the Education Reform Act 1988, industrialists and managers are being encouraged to sit on school governing bodies. I was interested to see that although school-industry links are increasingly being established, 40 per cent. of the 1,500 schools recently surveyed by the CBI education task force still have no regular links with local businesses. I can put that figure into perspective by saying that more than half of the 1,000 businesses surveyed have no regular links with schools. It is therefore important for even greater emphasis to be placed on the need to bring education and industry together.
The technical and vocational education initiative is one way in which to bridge the gap between education and industry. It is necessary for our young people to learn through modern work-related courses which develop skills and aptitudes as well as impart pure knowledge. Such courses should encourage more than just academic skills. I suspect that in the past too much emphasis has been put on the academic high flier who seeks a place in one of the professions and not enough on the average youngster.
The Government recognise the scope of the problem. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) made an excellent speech. Nobody can doubt the sincerity with which he speaks. I can reassure him that the Government have not abdicated their responsibilities in education. Indeed, the present Secretary of State is probably the most reforming Secretary of State since Butler. The hon. Gentleman can draw encouragement from that. Measures recently introduced in the Education Reform Act will encourage business to become more involved in school governing bodies. Those initiatives should be commended.
On the core curriculum, however, I take a very different view from the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. I believe that it will provide pupils with a better preparation for adult life and employment. Its emphasis on English, mathematics and science will ensure that they are better able to earn a living. That is one of the more important aspects of education. The core curriculum will ensure that the important subjects cannot be dropped in favour of soft options. Attainment targets will provide a clear indication of what is to be learnt and will be capable of being applied to different levels of ability.
Unfortunately, that message has not reached the Labour Benches. I recall during a session of Standing Committee J, which considered the Education Reform Bill, referring to the need to ensure that young people are adequately and properly trained for industry when they leave school, so that, as a result, they will be able to earn a living. I was then told by a Labour Member that school was not about that. Clearly the message has not reached all Opposition Members.
It is fair to say that, until recently, technology and the learning of technical skills has been a major weakness in British education. That is why we have introduced TVEI. Although it is a considerable help, it does not go the whole way and that is why I support the introduction of city technology colleges. Despite what the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said, CTCs represent a major step forward. I particularly like the fact that industry is directly involved in the funding of those colleges. Industry has a real interest in their success and will invest time and expertise to ensure that CTCs do not fail.
I am delighted that the first CTC has been sited in the west midlands. It is up and running and I hope that others will soon come on stream. With particular reference to the

speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, may I say how much I regret and deplore the failure of certain local education authorities to respond positively to the challenge of CTCs by not making available redundant school buildings. That is why we are not seeing more CTCs. It is due not to a shortage of funding, but to the shortage of buildings being made available by LEAs, principally Labour-controlled authorities.
I am at a loss to understand why LEAs cannot appreciate that, in failing to co-operate with the provision of CTCs, they are depriving children in their areas of a good, solid technical education that will equip them to earn a living in industry and play a substantial part in society.

Mr. Fatchett: I am sorry to disturb the hon. Gentleman's flow, but as he condemned local authorities for not taking up the initiative on CTCs, does he extend that condemnation to those Conservative authorities such as Trafford, which has said that it will not participate in CTCs because the proposals interfere with its reorganisation plans? Does he condemn the industrialists in Plymouth, for instance, who say that they want no part in the CTC scheme because it will interfere with good quality local education?

Mr. Pawsey: The few instances that the hon. Gentleman quotes do not damage my argument. Of course I regret any LEA, whatever its political persuasion, not making available redundant school buildings for use as CTCs. The CTCs have a genuine and important part to play in education, and authorities that are so short-sighted about them should be condemned. I believe that CTCs increase the amount of choice that is available to pupils. They should be welcomed and not denigrated, particularly for reasons of political dogma.
I hope that when my hon. Friend responds to the debate he will say that he will accelerate the development of CTCs. Each month, each year lost in their development means that more children are being deprived of a valuable educational opportunity.
I have referred so far to the relationship between schools and industry, but hon. Members will understand that the United Kingdom's long-term prosperity also depends on industry attracting more graduates. In turn, that means that we need more young people entering higher education. We need a greater reservoir of graduate talent. It is projected that there will be a 4 per cent. increase in student numbers by the year 2000, but I believe that my hon. Friend should bear in mind that that may be an unduly modest goal. That percentage needs to be expanded, certainly if the United Kingdom is to compete successfully with countries such as Germany, Japan and the United States. We need more graduates and it would be helpful if the Minister could say how the United Kingdom compares with the countries that I have mentioned.
It is difficult to make a speech on education without referring to teachers; after all, they play a critical part. I believe that the majority of teachers in our schools are dedicated to their profession and to the children in their charge. I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, speaking at the Conservative party conference last week, paid tribute to the many teachers who put in a great deal of personal and professional effort to make the GCSE such a success. Teachers, however, are


not always their own best advocates. Clearly the disruption that has taken place in our schools has left some lasting scars.
The debate is of genuine value because it underlines the importance not only of education, but of industry. I believe that those two pillars are essential to the nation's well-being.

Mr. Tony Baldry: As befits the chairman of the Conservative Back Bench education committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made an excellent speech on the comprehensive range of measures that the Government are taking to further educational advancement in this country. I support the thrust of his argument.
All the major educational initiatives have come from the Conservative Benches and very new ideas or new suggestions have come from the Labour Benches. We have a "we can do" attitude. It was said that we could not introduce the GCSE in time. We said we could, and we did. It was said that we could not find enough parent governors to take up their places on the school boards. We said that we could and it has happened.
I am sure that the House will be glad to know that on the shortest election manifesto ever I was recently elected a parent governor. My election manifesto said, "Tony Baldry is the father of Edward and Edward is in class 1." I won by two votes and I may adopt that manifesto at the next general election.
The fact that there is a full turnout on the Conservative Benches today is evidence of the genuine commitment of our party to improving education and ensuring that what every good parent wants for his children is achieved—the state providing good education for all our children.
New ideas on education and industry links are extremely important. Today we have heard about a whole range of initiatives that the Government are introducing. One initiative that has not received sufficient attention so far was that launched not by one but by three Secretaries of State, the enterprise and education initiative. My hon. Friend the Minister alluded to that earlier. It is a substantial initiative and I believe that it needs to be flagged up. Under that initiative, the Government have made a commitment that each child will have two or more weeks' work experience in normal school hours before he leaves school, and that every year one in 10 teachers will have business experience. That means that by 1990 about 50,000 teachers each year will have business experience. During the next two years the Government will spend £12 million to pump-prime the initiative and nearly £5·5 million to fund at least one adviser in each local education authority area.
That is a fantastic initiative, and for those who have sometimes criticised the fact that there is no clear focus on whether the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Employment or the Department of Trade and Industry is the lead Department, it was good to see the three Secretaries of State working together on that initiative.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that every hon. Member is given a copy of the press pack that was issued at the launch. I received it only because I

publish books on education, and I suspect that the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) made the intervention that he did was that he had not seen the press pack. Likewise, I hope that every hon. Member will be sent a copy of the pamphlet entitled "Schools-Industry Links", which deals with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). One difficulty is that if we are not careful we shall have too many initiatives. That could easily be resolved by those in schools and business and hon. Members knowing what is available.
That point is especially relevant to the business community. In north Oxfordshire there are few big companies. It is a thriving economy with many small businesses, all of which want to do their best for the local community and many of which have strong links with local schools. No primary or secondary school in north Oxfordshire does not have strong, vigorous links with local industry. But what employers find rather confusing is the many demands made upon them. The Department of Employment asks them to become involved in local employer networks. The Department of Trade and Industry comes along with signposting initiatives, and there are suggestions that private industry councils should take over from area manpower boards. But employers do not have much time. Smaller businesses do not have too many people who will become involved in such decisions. They want to make a positive and useful contribution, and we must provide a clear framework in which they can do that.
With the enterprise and education initiative, the three Secretaries of State have made a good start. But of course there will be changes. Funding for the local employer networks will end soon, and there will have to be a discussion of what will replace the area manpower boards as the Manpower Services Commission, as a training agency, is reshaped. I hope that the three Departments involved will remember that these programmes must be delivered on the ground by busy teachers and employers.
The debate has provided evidence of the overwhelming energy and enthusiasm to ensure that the links between industry and education work. The most encouraging factor is that when one visits schools one finds the climate has changed completely from that of a couple of years ago. Then it was all moans, depression and dispirited people, but now—with the exception of a few neanderthals in the National Union of Teachers in inner London—there is a much more optimistic picture, with schools raring to go, embracing the local community and thinking positively. Among head teachers and others to whom I have talked in my area recently, the enthusiasm is infectious. Through the Education Reform Act and measures such as the national curriculum and TVEI, we are putting Britain on the right path—acknowledging the demographic trends—to take advantage of the opportunities of the next century.
There is enormous optimism in the Conservative party, and the pathetic turnout of the Opposition parties today is tragic. The only time that they take part in education debates is at the behest of some teaching unions. But we believe that the enthusiasm and energy that now flows through British education is exciting. We can do a lot more, and we are doing it.

Mr. Mike Woodcock: I hope that all contributors to this debate at least share a common belief that education and training needs in industry will increase—and for two reasons. They will increase, first, because demographic trends suggest that over the next few years the United Kingdom will face a shortage of skilled manpower as the number of school leavers entering industry falls. Secondly, they will increase because the retraining of existing work forces will become necessary, as will the re-entry of many maried women to many of our industries.
If we are to survive and succeed in an increasingly competitive world the quality of our management must improve, and it is about that quality that I wish to speak. I want to deal with the need to educate our managers.
I recently returned from speaking at a management development conference in California, a part of the world which, more than any other, has nurtured new approaches to the development of managers. It is 10 years since I last spoke at a management conference in the United States and I remember that at that time British speakers had a major credibility problem. Britain was then world-famous for shoddy goods, poor quality, late deliveries—in short, for what was known as the British disease. British presenters were the ambassadors of failure.
My reception this year was very different, I am pleased to say. Participants were anxious to hear about British success, about how we had managed in less than 10 years to turn the sick man of Europe, languishing at the bottom of the economic growth league, into one of the most successful economies in the world. What part had British managers played in that process? How had they been trained to lead a second industrial revolution?
Managers have to live within the constraints imposed by politicians, but they also have to live and succeed in an increasingly competitive world. It was John Egan who defined business as making money out of satisfying customers, but in the 1960s and 1970s Britain unfortunately largely forgot that truth. We were driven by Keynesian notions, and businesses became mere bureaucracies for employing people. We became famous for shoddy goods, poor service and appalling industrial relations. In those days we were investing only a quarter of what our competitors were in developing managers.
Ten years later our economy is much more consumer-driven; we are more marketing-oriented. Marketing is now seen as satisfying customers, not as a euphemism for moving shoddy goods. We are well on the way to creating an enterprise culture and achieving a widespread recognition that our economic well-being depends primarily on producing the right goods in the right quantity of the right quality at the right price.
To survive and succeed we must be competitive. There is much talk right now about 1992, but many of the challenges that face our managers are more global and even more significant than that. We have to compete not only with our partners in Europe, but worldwide. We must meet the challenge of the Pacific basin countries, the challenge of lower wage rates in many parts of the world, and the emergence of China as a world economic force.
Over the past few years I have been privileged to visit and work with managers in many countries, and it is clear to me that, although circumstances differ around the world, successful managers the world over exhibit a similar

set of beliefs. They believe that managers must manage, that only the management group in an organisation has the knowledge, authority and position to determine the mission of the enterprise, to acquire resources and to take strategic decisions. They believe that, as with milk, the cream has to be at the top, that the quality of those who fill management roles is crucial and that management competence must be continually developed throughout working life. They believe that in successful organisations performance must be king and rewards must be linked to performance. They believe that managers of organisations must do the right thing—in other words, they must focus on the right issues and on the things that get results. They also believe that organisations must do things right: they must be efficient if they are to succeed. They recognise that there is no such thing as a free lunch, that in every organisation every activity costs money and that someone, somewhere must pay. That realisation has been hard to achieve in many of our public sector industries.
These managers believe, too, that in the end it is the management that cares that wins, and that when demanding hard work, loyalty, skill, care and honesty from employees, commitment will be given only to managers who are fit to govern. Compassion and fairness bring that committment. They believe that it is necessary in an organisation for the whole work force to pull together, that teamwork is vital at every level, and that a well-organised team can achieve much more than the sum of its parts. They believe that justice must prevail in the organisations of today. They believe that managers have considerable power over people's lives and often act as judge and jury with no right of appeal and that it is therefore necessary for a successful organisation to devise and administer fair rules and regulations. They believe that every organisation needs to study the environment and to know its enemies. That is because in every commercial organisation the world over talented people are planning how to increase their business at the expense of other organisations.
They believe that it is the fittest who survive, that competitiveness is the only answer and that we cannot avoid market forces nor would it be healthy to try. Finally, they believe in the SAS motto, "Who dares wins". Successful managers take calculated risks. They are opportunists. My experience suggests that those 12 beliefs invariably characterise successful managements wherever they are to be found in the world. The emergence, or perhaps the re-emergence, of those beliefs in United Kingdom organisations has substantially contributed to our economic success in the past few years.
In recent years the policies of the Government more than anything else have enabled managers in the United Kingdom to put those beliefs into practice and to lead our economic revival. But beliefs are not enough. Managers must have skills and the competence to meet the challenges of today's world. In the United States we see a culture in which, much more than in the United Kingdom, everyone grows up thinking that to some extent he has to behave as a business man. There is much more emphasis on people owning their own development, which is seen as an investment in their future. A quarter of all undergraduates in the United States are majoring in business studies. The United States produces 170,000 masters of business administration, and 85 per cent. of all top managers in the United States have degrees. There is increased questioning


of education in business schools and a widespread move to put training back into companies and to link it to practical experience.
When we contrast the position in the United States with that in the United Kingdom, we find that only 24 per cent. of our top managers have degrees. That compares to 85 per cent. not only in the United States but in Japan. Britain has only 12,000 MBAs compared to 170,000 produced in the United States. By contrast, we have 120,000 qualified accountants compared to 4,000 in West Germany and 6,000 in Japan. In Britain there is, quite wrongly, a belief in pragmatism rather than in professionalism, that experience is the only worthwhile school. We have no well signposted and generally accepted route into business and management, and that may be one of the reasons for fewer entrants to management.
As I said earlier, in the 1960s and 1970s we were investing only one quarter of the amount invested by our competitors in training and development. Managers in many other countries and certainly in the United States, West Germany, France and Japan are better qualified. There is a widespread belief in those countries that managers need to be well and appropriately educated before management and must be helped to develop throughout their working life. Unfortunately that belief is not as widespread in the United Kingdom. We have some excellent managers, but we simply do not have enough. In management development terms we are amateurs rather than professionals.
We must do more, and the way to develop managerial competence is not always through traditional approaches. Classroom learning is weak at dealing with the problems and opportunities that managers face. It is passive and does not utilise experience to the full. It is expensive in terms of time away from work and return on investment. We need more distance learning, which will allow managers to study in their own time and at their own pace and which does not involve time off work. Like the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) I, too, commend the work of the Open university, the United Kingdom Chartered Association of Certified Accountants and the Henley management college in pioneering distance learning approaches.
Secondly, we need more action learning, which is an effective, work-based alternative to classroom learning—an approach based on managerial improvement through rigorous study of the manager's own and other people's jobs. This concept was originally proposed by Professor Reg Revans, and the International Management Centre from Buckingham, now part of the International Manager Centres organisation, whose president is Baroness Cox and whose principal Professor Gordon Wills, has done some valuable work on it. I commend its work to the Government.
In a recent report written by Professor Wills, which he called "Creating Wealth through Management Development", he argued that the Government should apply to management education and training some of the principles that they have applied to other parts of our national life. Among the recommendations, which I support and commend to the Government, are, first, that the Government should end the funding of mid-career management development except as an employer because

it creates the wrong dependent relationship. Industry should call the shots, and industry should pay. Secondly, it recommends that state-supported business schools should be privatised because they will operate more efficiently and respond better to the needs of those who will be paying. Thirdly, it recommends that, as a benchmark, 10 per cent. of the management payroll in our major organisations should be invested in management development; fourthly that managers should make an annual report to shareholders and staff on the development of managers, and finally that universities engaged in management development work should compete for funds to ensure excellence in management development. He argues, and I agree, that our universities have failed to distinguish between scholarship for its own sake and scholarship that helps managers to be more effective.
There is hardly anything more important to the economic success of the United Kingdom than the education and training of our managers. It is they who will largely determine our success in international markets, and through it, our standard of living. In the past we have not done a good job. My principal message to my hon. Friend the Minister is that it is time for us to stop relying so much on the institutions that have let us down and time to start supporting the institutions that have provided more relevant approaches.

Mr. Richard Page: There is an old story of a teacher who took her charges around the local factory, and, having loaded them into the coach to go home, said, "Right. I have taken you round the factory and if you don't work hard and pass your exams, that is where you will end up." That is the sort of deeply ingrained attitude of the past that is responsible for the position that we are in now.
I think that the attitude is changing, but, nevertheless, there are those in education who wish to see the continuation of the greater emphasis on the arts than on the sciences. To them I say that as we come increasingly on the receiving end of the products of foreign technology—as the balance of payments illustrates every month—it is increasingly unlikely that rafts of young men and women able to claim to be members of Mensa will be able to reverse that trend.
The seriousness of the position was outlined in a letter in The Daily Telegraph last week, which I read while I was attending our excellent conference in Brighton, just before the brilliant speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The letter, which is written by Professor Miller, whom I do not know from Adam, talks about:
the low undergraduate enrolment in the hard sciences, including engineering, in the English-speaking nations—of the order of 10 per cent. as opposed to close to 40 per cent. in the rest of the developed world.
That position will get worse. We all know how falling school rolls affect our constituencies. We are all faced with school closures and I can see that competition in our professions for qualified and expert people will continue to grow. Unless there is a dramatic change, science and industry will be heavily squeezed in getting the right calibre of people to come forward to be the managers of the


future. What is to be done to change the climate of opinion so that engineers in this country are treated with the same respect as those in France or Germany?
Matters are improving and Government actions are helping. A few years ago we had an "industry year" which was a great success. However, I could not help thinking at the time, "I bet Japan has an industry year every year and not just a one-off effort which is then abandoned."
I welcome today's debate. It is an example of the Government's further commitment to the needs of industry. The discussion is particularly timely, because the CBI's task force report on business and education, was published on Monday. That report points out clearly that the success of the education system is vital if industry and commerce are to be successful.
As I have already said, the decreasing number of school leavers will produce dramatic problems. Industry's needs are relatively simple. It wants school leavers to come out of school able to read and write and with basic mathematical skills so that they can be trained by industry. There is ample evidence, stretching back over the years, that industry has been dissatisfied with the performance of the education system.
In his 1986 publication, "The Illiterate Generation", John Spencer wrote:
the country cannot be getting value for money from the education system when the present number of youngsters leave school ill-equipped to enter the world of work, with a low standard of literacy and numeracy, few if any other skills, and no qualifications leaving employers and further education to pick up the pieces".
That, if nothing else, is justification for the Government's Education Reform Act 1988.I shall not go into the details of the Act now, but, given industry's attitude to our education system, I am surprised by the Opposition's resistance to the change and the improvements that the Act is trying to bring about.
Life is not just a one-way street, and industry must be equally aware of its obligation to play a positive part in establishing links with education. Companies must encourage managers and employees to take up places as school governors. The sad evidence, which has already been quoted by my hon. Friend the Minister is that about 60 per cent. of firms have no links with their local secondary schools; less than one third of such schools have the necessary links with firms to enable them to provide two weeks' work experience for their fourth-formers, and more than one third of secondary schools have no links with business. That is unacceptable. If that position is not improved, the education system will not be sensitive to the requirements of industry.
Her Majesty's inspectorate published a report on secondary schools in the summer which reveals a slight rise in educational performance since 1979. It seems that the most able children and those below average ability are the least stimulated. The report shows that teachers have a lower expectation of their pupils than is justified. I find that a sad conclusion.
Hon. Members have produced examples of how we compare with foreign countries. I shall not go through that again, but one figure showed the contrast with Japan. About 90 per cent. of Japan's school population studies mathematics to the age of 18; in the United Kingdom that figure is only 18 per cent. If one adds that fact to the other

comments made today, one can see that our schoolchildren will have to work harder and longer at school to achieve the levels and standards that they will need in the modern world.
We have high quality for a few of the high fliers in engineering, but there is a vast gap between that and the intermediate level. It must be closed. The CBI mentioned that 60 per cent. of the firms that it surveyed had no links with schools, and anyone can work out that 40 per cent. do. Lever Bros., which is based in the Wirral, has its centenary schools competition. It is fostering closer links between industries and local schools. That is something that all firms should try to do in their area. I have been in correspondence with a Mr. Etches, who is a director of the Express Food Group, which is a subsidiary of Grand Metropolitan. I hasten to say that I have no connection with the company apart from this correspondence. Mr. Etches goes out of his way to say that his company
welcomes the Government's proposal to arrange for all teachers to have a one-week introduction to industry with commercial organisations".
He adds that it will do everything possible to help. He observes that there are some difficulties, especially when it comes to implementation of the scheme. He says that his company is not assisted
by an apparent unwillingness on the part of the teachers and pupils to undertake some of the training during school holidays periods. To exclude the school holidays means that there are not enough weeks in the year to enable us to meet these demands.
Mr. Etches requests that all teachers who complete a training course be given, as part of the curriculum, one or two weeks in industry so that they receive a grounding in what is involved and needed in the industrial world.
The Education Reform Act, the introduction of city technology courses and other initiatives show that the Government are on the right lines and are tackling a severe problem. If there is wholehearted effort on all sides, and no split as a result of party arguments, we can produce the ethos and the culture within the classroom that will produce a generation of children that will go into our industries with dedication and the knowledge that wealth creation will create a better society for the whole nation.

Mr. James Paice: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this wide-ranging debate. Many issues have been raised and I do not want to repeat any of them.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) referred to training and the need to have many more much longer courses. I read into what he was saying the belief that we need to return to the old training systems of many years ago, such as five-year apprenticeships. Since then there have been many changes. Training technology is different from that which prevailed a few years ago. We no longer train by the old sit-by-Nellie syndrome, whereby one gradually gained knowledge by sitting and watching. Modern training techniques mean that skills can be gained far more quickly. The acquisition of skills still takes some time, but there is no reason why most skills cannot be gained in a two-year training programme such as the YTS, with perhaps a one-year extension.
The demographic changes that are coming will have an effect on industry and education, and I do not intend to re-rehearse all the statistics. There will be no room in industry for those who do not have the skills that will be


required. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) told us that he was born with a shovel in his hands and then used it for 35 years. There have been many changes since then. There will be no jobs in future for men with a shovel.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: What about the pits?

Mr. Paice: Technology is advancing rapidly even in the pits. In future, there will be little opportunity for the manual unskilled worker. That means that we must encourage and enable all our school leavers to do much more than an unskilled manual job. We must remember that children leaving school today will have a 40-year or 50-year working life ahead of them. If we think back and consider how work and employment have changed over the past 40 or 50 years, we must understand what could happen in future and recognise that changes may take place.
There is also a need for greater personal skills among school leavers. In future many jobs will be, as they are now, in the service sector. That sector involves far more customer contact than the manufacturing sector. Such contact requires a greater degree of personal skills which we must emphasise.
Keyboard skills are also very important. The great variation in the provision of those skills in different areas has been brought to my attention. My sons recently changed schools from one county to another and I have seen the great difference in computer provision between the schools. It is now eight years since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, as Minister for Industry and Information Technology, launched what was then one of the great reforms of the century, the introduction of computers into schools. However, many schools still have a long way to go in computer provision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) referred to the confusion among many businesses. The majority of jobs in future will be created in small businesses. One of the features of those businesses is that they do not have a specialist personnel department. They do not have individuals with the time, ability or background information to specialise purely in personnel. One of the big difficulties is keeping up, not simply with the latest jargon, but with the new courses and qualifications. That impinges on recruitment processes.
Over the past few years we have seen the Government's initiatives in schools and further education including the technical and vocational education initiative and the certificate of pre-vocational education. However, we have also seen the efforts of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications which is playing a vital role in improving the quality of qualifications and improving assessment methods and is also trying to set standards for the different qualifications so that employers and users can clearly understand them.
Progress on that appears to be slow. It is important for small businesses that someone—and I believe that it must be the NCVQ—accepts the responsibility to inform businesses of what is happening about the standardisation of qualifications. I know from experience before I was elected to the House that many people are rejected for

employment simply because a small employer does not have a clue what the apparent qualification paraded by the applicant actually means. That may be a highly relevant and important qualification, but if the employer does not know what it means, it jeopardises the young person's opportunity. It is important that the NCVQ should publicise its work in that respect.
We must also remember that small business men must be able to understand qualifications to assess their relevant merits to their businesses in terms of standards and the practical or theoretical content. Small businesses must also understand whether qualifications represent an ability to acquire knowledge or a measure of knowledge or skill already acquired. There is quite a difference in that.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) referred to careers advice and counselling. I endorse the points that he made, and I speak from my own considerable experience of the recruitment sector and of training young people.
There is no doubt in my mind that many careers teachers and careers advisers in the county services do not fully understand industry as we would like them to do. Their heart is very much in the right place, and I should not wish my words to be taken as being critical of them. However, they are not always provided with resources, opportunity and support from their peers in respect of the need to achieve greater commitment and involvement within industry.
We have heard about many of the Government's important initiatives, but I endorse the view that much more needs to be done. We must ensure that teachers do not take the attitude that no one should trespass on their preserve of education. Some industries have adopted in the past the isolationist attitude that education is nothing to do with them, but fortunately that is changing. If we can improve the quality of careers teachers and advisers, we shall be building the bridge with which much of the debate has been concerned; the bridge between education and industry.
It appears to me that careers officers are best placed to provide that bridge. If my hon. Friend the Minister is to take messages from this debate—and there have been many—I hope that he will convey the need to devote greater effort to improving the quality of advisers and increasing the available resources. I refer not only to financial resources, but to time and to the support of those advisers' peers and employers, in improving the quality of careers advice that is available in our schools and building that bridge that we all want.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I join those hon Members who have paid tribute, albeit in his absence, to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), for his excellent speech. I also thank him for his kind personal remarks, and acknowledge how much he has contributed to adult education, both with me in this House and with others.
A week ago, I had the honour of sponsoring a centenary dinner in the House for the London Head Teachers Association. It was a great pleasure for me to welcome so many former colleagues on that auspicious occasion. They ranged from a former headmaster of Holland park comprehensive school having 2,000 children, to the heads of many small schools. They ranged


in age from a lady in her 20s who had been recently appointed to another lady in her 80s who had been retired for many years.
In our informal discussions we talked about the links between schools and industry in London over the past 100 years. What came out of those discussions was that there have been considerable links between them, most having been forged by head teachers. I pay tribute, as other hon. Members have done, to the great teaching profession, of which I have been so proud a member, and especially to those teachers who labour under growing difficulties at times.
I was told by east London head teachers, for example, that they had had great links with the docks. Many of the children in their schools were the sons or daughters of dockers, and so those children would visit the docks and knew all about what was going on there. The same has been true of other industries. In my constituency, pupils of the schools around the former Hoover building on the A40, many of whom were the children of the 1,500 people who worked there, frequently visited it. There have traditionally been strong links between schools and industry, and the present drive to strengthen and improve them is much to be welcomed.
Let me sound a word of warning, however. As one who was in teaching for 23 years and headed a mixed school of 2,200 for seven of them, let me say that there is no substitute for the development of a clear and firm work ethic in pupils, or for ensuring that they emerge from their schools with that ethic. In many schools, both today and historically, it has been missing. While bearing in mind that Lord Elton is conducting an inquiry into school discipline, I must warn that truancy and poor work in schools will do more to damage future education and training links between schools and industry than anything else. In some London schools 40 per cent. of children are absent every day, and others are out of control. Whatever we say in the House, they will be in no position to profit much from whatever links are forged.
The House should remember that its first duty is to pay attention to the basic needs of education. A good, clear national curriculum is necessary, as has been said, but only firm discipline gives children the security to work really well. We should also remember that we shall need the 40 per cent. who are truants or irregular attenders in future: they will have to play an important part in our industries if the country is to remain competitive.
Some of those children are difficult, but not many. When there is high employment a small element will always say, "I need not work hard, because I shall get a job anyway." Today, they say, "There is no point in working hard now because I shall probably not get a job"— although, as we all know, unemployment is falling dramatically, which is very welcome. We must take account of the presence of that mentality, because those children are part of our future and it is essential that the educational system meets their needs and instils in them the work ethic that I have mentioned.
There is a bright light on the horizon in the form of the GCSE examination: I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) agrees with me. In many ways the CSE was more effective than O-level. Many of my hon. Friends may not understand why I say that, but the CSE was effective in that it tested, examined, quantified and assessed course work undertaken over two years. In English and foreign languages there was a strong

emphasis on oral and aural work, allied with proper assessment of "physical" work in such subjects as art, as well as written papers. Those four elements gave the CSE an impact that O-level had ceased to have. Throughout those two years pupils knew that each piece of work that they undertook could be submitted to examiners for assessment, and they therefore worked hard. The examination induced much stronger efforts to produce good work.
The GCSE, happily, embraces all the principles of the CSE, which was based on a report by Robert Beloe, commissioned as long ago as the 1950s. That report is much to the credit of the Conservative Administration of the day. It does not neglect the value of testing memory and nerve on the day and the value of a pupil being able to produce a good performance, but it does not say that if a pupil cannot perform well on the day he must fail. Attainment tests will be valuable. They will set targets for children and give an idea of how their aptitudes and abilities are developing. In my opinion, attainment tests are to be welcomed.
At the same time as congratulating ourselves on these great movements forward, we have to note that 16-year-old pupils are about a year, and in some cases two years, behind their counterparts in France, Germany, Holland and other major industrial competitors in basic disciplines, notably mathematics. That is very serious. I hope that the Education Reform Act and the new national curriculum will deal directly with that deficiency.
The Government's aim is to have one in five of the population over 18 years of age in higher education, most of them on degree courses, by the year 2000 and, if possible, to achieve that figure before then. When the Government came to power in 1979, about one in 13 of the population were in higher education—a figure substantially and dangerously far below the figures in other European countries.
A school's first duty is to the children. It must prepare them for life by developing their fullest education potential. In the Prime Minister's memorable words it must teach them "zeal for achievement, above all things." That is a great phrase. Implicit in that achievement is a sound work ethic. Education must help pupils to adopt flexible attitudes and to adapt successfully to new work practices. Most people will have five different jobs, and possibly many more than that, during their working lives.
I welcome the suggestion of work experience for pupils and teachers, but I have reservations about it. It is a very important part of the Education Reform Act, but from my long experience I feel that I must sound a note of warning. Present work experience for pupils is achieving only limited success. If boys or girls of 14, 15, 16 or over go to factories, newspapers or other places of work for two weeks they are not really wanted; they are a bit in the way. They sit around and nobody takes any notice of them. People are too busy to think about them. Not enough is being done for these boys and girls. Unless pupils are given a properly supervised programme of work and unless they are helped to appreciate what they are expected to do, work experience will not be successful.
The same is true of teachers. If teachers are invited to go into industry to have a look but simply hang around there, they will not have an opportunity to see what industry is attempting to do, why it is attempting to do it and how it is attempting to do it. Teachers will use their initiative and make something of it, but more thought


needs to be given to that aspect. We must not fall back on slogans. We are pleased that this is to happen and it is good that it will, but more thought should be given to what they are to do. Work shadowing is much better than work experience as we have known it and as I have described it.
I hope that, if we recruit more teachers from industry, we will build into schools a relationship between education, training and industry. Such a relationship has been valuable where we already have teachers from industry. I have known teachers come in to teach handicraft subjects, book-keeping and home economics, for example. Such teachers can be recruited from industry. In that way, we can build into schools a valuable relationship with industry.
Why do we not have heads who are recruited direct from industry? The emergency-trained heads who came into schools just after the war, often with only one year of training, were in almost all cases outstanding because they had a background in the forces, industry or other jobs. They gave superb leadership to schools. Dame Margaret Miles was a very successful head of a London comprehensive, but she had never taught before. Arthur Fford was a successful head of Rugby school and had never taught before. The same can be said of Geoffrey Fisher, later Archbishop of Canterbury, who became a head at the age of 26 and without any previous teaching experience. I do not think that the profession would mind that. We should have more teachers from industry and try to find some heads to come directly from industry.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The improving climate between education and industry, which the Government have encouraged, has been mentioned by several of my hon. Friends, and I should like to give examples of what is happening in my constituency.
About two years ago, the mayor of one of the boroughs decided to have as his theme for the year a competition for schools in conjunction with industry to develop certain technical and mechanical skills. The theme was co-operation between education and industry. It was a splendid success and most schools took part. There were some remarkable results of applied research. Some of the models looked a bit strange. One looked a bit like a mechanical phallus, but its properities were undoubtedly ingenious and Leonardo da Vinci would have been proud of it.
When I went round schools, I noted the enthusiasm with which they were responding to the challenge, and the tremendous backing supplied by industry. One school in my constituency won a national award for developing research projects with industry.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) spoke of his interesting trade union ties. He will, therefore, wish to know that I have a first-class training centre in my constituency which is run by the Electrical, Electronic Telecommunication and Plumbing Union. Its centre in Esher has provided considerable assistance to unionists who want to increase skills and develop a practical understanding of how industry works. The centre goes wider than that, however. It often runs courses to assist small businesses. It knows that small businesses, which are great providers of new employment, often do not have a

proper training scheme. Such a union with foresight and a positive approach to the future is therefore able to assist small businesses by providing expertise. I am sure that my colleagues welcome that initiative.
Until a few years ago, industry and higher education operated largely independently of one another. Universities regarded industry as distant from the real purpose of learning and scholarship and industry was slightly bewildered about how it could relate to universities.
Over the years, the cold light of economic realities, together with Government encouragement, has changed the situation in three ways. First, research, both basic and applied, has increased. Secondly, the training and provision of personnel has altered and thirdly there has been a growing realisation of the need to compete more openly with other countries within the European Community. Industry has come to recognise that it must have people who have had comparable training to those in such countries as Germany.
The changes that have taken place in research should be welcomed and have been of mutual benefit to universities and industry. Companies donate funds, equipment or executive know-how to academic ventures. In turn universities provide research results, a testing ground for new products and access to future markets. The proliferation of science parks in particular represents a major advance. By simply being located on a university campus they are at the heart of the new interface between industry and education.
Universities have also done a great deal to encourage greater research funding from industry and the mutual benefits to which I have referred have been apparent. Salford university is perhaps the best-known example of education and industry working to each other's benefit, but it is not the only one. Hull university's research income from outside industrial resources has gone up by 80 per cent. in the past two years, and it is an interesting model. That university's very existence was threatened a few years ago, but it is now picking itself up and many local industries, not least Reckitt and Colman, are benefiting as a result.
I wish to pay particular tribute to a university that covers my constituency, the university of Surrey. The Surrey research park, attached to the university, is probably the fastest growing university-based science park in the United Kingdom. The university has emerged as a research leader among the technological universities. It is a matter of interest that many of the lecturers and professors are directly involved in industry. The university is known to have one or two shareholding interests in companies that are being developed.
I was particularly pleased that the annual report of the University of Surrey for 1986–87 said:
A University therefore has an important role to play in advances in knowledge and information so as to ensure that this country has an adaptable, informed and creative workforce. All connected with the University must regard themselves as part of that workforce.
That is a tremendous statement for a university to make and shows how far we have come in recent years in the realisation of the importance of such matters.
A study of the revenues of the University of Surrey in 1987 shows that research grants and contracts have risen


from £5 million to £8 million while the University Grants Committee grant has remained static at £14 million. Here is a case of a university putting its own house in order.
Of particular relevance to that university's efforts has been the increase in applied research. The research projects in three faculties have attracted millions of pounds of support from industry, from the Government as well as from research institutes and research councils. Among the programmes that are currently in operation are biotechnology, information technology, space satellite engineering, computer-aided design, robotics, drug reactions, artificial intelligence and energy economics. Surely that represents the way forward for universities. They should try to develop the sort of courses that can benefit their students and the country.
I also welcome those schemes that have been developed to utilise university and polytechnic resources for the training of Britain's work force. Of particular importance is the PICKUP scheme, which was started by the Government six years ago. Last year, under that scheme, a nationwide network of PICKUP technology centres was introduced, designed to bring together academic skills and expertise with commercial opportunities. The centres serve as regional offices co-ordinating the activities of those in higher and further education with those in industry and commerce and even local government. Industry has provided cash, people, equipment and facilities for the centres, and for the Government it has been a pump-priming exercise, contributing so much in the first year and tapering off in successive years.
All those developments are to be welcomed, but much more must be done. Universities have responded to the challenge, albeit late and perhaps out of necessity, following the financial restraints of 1981. But industry is still lagging behind. Compared with our European neighbours, the amount spent by British firms on research and development is disappointing. More spending could involve a bigger role for higher education, especially in basic research. That was drawn out by the report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee entitled, "Civil Research and Development", which was published in November 1986.
The role of higher education in the provision of personnel is likely to become increasingly important, and industry must be made aware of it. As it is, the number of graduates entering industry has fallen. In the 1970s, an average of 50 percent. of graduates went into industry. By 1986, the figure had fallen to 29 per cent. I was heartened to see a recent survey in the Daily Telegraph showing that 18 per cent. of current students were keen to go into industry, because industry finds it difficult to compete with well-paid jobs in the City and its problems are compounded by the fact that it will soon be fishing from a smaller pool. The demographic changes that have been mentioned this morning mean that the number of graduates coming on to the job market will take a sharp downturn, so industry will be competing for fewer graduates. If during the next six years the number of school leavers falls by 25 per cent., it will have a knock-on effect on universities. That survey, however, also showed that engineering was among the least respected jobs. That is a worrying sign and we must bring to bear ample pressure to change the position.
Industry can do something for itself. Given the demographic changes, it strikes me—it was also very much in the mind of a personnel director to whom I spoke earlier

this week—that industry must do more to encourage undergraduates before they go up to university. There must be much more sponsoring of undergraduates by industry, as the Army has done successfully. By sponsoring undergraduates, industries will be sure that they can obtain employees in a competitive job market. It will take pressure off the Government, given the difficulties that will be faced when we require more money for higher education. That is a practical way to ensure co-operation between industry and universities.

Mr. David Amess: All the speeches that I have heard have been extremely constructive when talking about the educational needs of industry. I wish to bring to the attention of the House what we are doing in Essex, and especially in Basildon.
When I became Member of Parliament for Basildon in 1983, more that 10,000 people were without jobs. I am pleased to tell the House that today that number has decreased to 3,439. That is still too many, but each year, each month and each week the number of people without work in Basildon is decreasing. The reason for that is the endeavour of our educationists and of industry. I have visited every educational establishment in Basildon and am about to embark on another tour. I have involved myself with most industrial activities in the town and I am happy to say that communication is improving all the time. In Essex, and in Basildon, we are happy to meet the challenge of industry's requirements for education.
I was heartened, two nights ago, to be invited to attend an open evening of the largest secondary school in Basildon, Chalvedon school. There I found an enthusiastic headmaster supported by a hard-working, united team He said in his address:
I have looked forward with relish to the opportunity of showing off the splendid facilities and some of the wonderful work of our pupils.
Our achievements are testimony to the hard work and enormous capability of the teaching staff and also to the involvement of parents.
There was a headmaster who was eagerly meeting the challenges that we face in 1988. All the parents of the children in the feeder schools were extremely impressed by what he said, his speech having shown the school's determination to uphold traditional values and to meet the changing challenges of education.
Essex education committee presides over the largest education area in the country. It is magnificently led by councillor Mrs. Margaret Hutton, who is ably supported by her fellow councillors and an excellent team of officers. In 1986, as part of industry year, Essex local education authority published a directory called "Connections". It listed education's links with industry. In 1986 there were 25 such links, and it is a testimony to the success of the programme that there are now 40.
At the heart of the Essex approach is the need to ensure that all Essex pupils appreciate how the nation earns its living, and that schools and colleges help them acquire the knowledge and skills that are relevant to adult life. I shall give a few examples of the various initiatives that we have introduced in Essex. The first is the extension of the technical and vocational education initiative into all schools and colleges in Essex That initiative features the development of significant education and industry links, including the formation of employer-led advisory bodies for all schools and colleges in Essex.
Next, there is work experience for all pupils under project Trident. Every company I visit in Basildon seems to have one of the young children who are training under Trident; the children are enthusiastic and find the experience invaluable. Between 1986 and 1987 more than 8,000 pupils from 100 schools took part in the scheme and more than another 1,000 pupils participated in the Essex work experience scheme.
Finally, we have industrial secondment for teachers and lecturers. The LEA pursues an active secondment programme that enables teachers and lecturers to spend up to two years on joint projects. At the moment, British Petroleum and GEC Avionics are involved in the scheme. The Ford Motor Company has also been extremely supportive. We have training programmes for teachers and lecturers, and school—industry practice in the curriculum. We also have the Essex introduction-to-industry scheme, "Learning for a changing world", and so on.
All these links and more are managed and encouraged by the Essex education committee, which is concerned now that these initiatives in education and industry should all come under one umbrella—that of the Department of Education and Science—and not remain part of the responsibilities of three separate Departments.
An industrial group in Basildon meets regularly to analyse what is happening in our schools. It is concerned about skills shortages and about the increasing demand from a wide range of non-technical and non-engineering industries for scarce technical skills. In addition, the growth sector of small new enterprise industries which operate predominantly in information technology and computer systems drain many trained and skilled people from established industry.
Finally, the traditional engineering companies need to employ a greater proportion of staff with technical skills as our technology develops. Essex education committee welcomes any challenge that industry wishes to put before it. Basildon is increasing all the time the number of initiatives that it takes on board from Essex county council. Standards are improving all the time and I am optimistic that we will be able to meet all the challenges that industry will set for us.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: This is a most useful debate and I should like to add my congratulations to those offered by hon. Members to the Minister on his new role. I am not so sure about congratulations for fighting and clamouring for this debate on the first Friday back, but I am sure that the Minister will take those congratulations with a pinch of salt. That is how they were viewed by the Opposition. The Opposition do not have a shadow Minister who has recently transferred from one Department to another, but we have with us two shadow Ministers, one for education and one for employment.
Most hon. Members have spoken from personal experience and many of us spent some time in education. I was not sponsored by the Association of University Teachers but I was a university teacher for 13 years and spent many years in the chemical and construction industries. I was interested in the way in which the debate flowed and in the Minister's speech when he talked about

renaissance man and the renaissance concept of the whole man. Nowadays we would not get away with talking about the whole man. I prefer to show the marks of my generation by talking about Herbert Marcusa and one-dimensional man. I suppose we could talk about the multidimensional person because that is largely what the debate has been about. We all want to see an education system that produces multidimensional people. I shall say more about that later.
We had excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and we heard a passionate speech from that well-known personality in the House my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). Some of us went to university and got all the benefits of a university education and it does us good to hear hon. Members speak for people who left school at the age of 14 and who had to get their education elsewhere. Sometimes that voice is not heard enough when we talk about education and training.
As some hon. Members have said, in only four years we shall have the reality of the single market in Europe. I have been to conference after conference about 1992 but very little is said about education at that time. There is a great deal of talk about mobility of labour but education and what we should do to enable us to face mobility of labour is not tackled. Mobility of qualification is also important. From 1992 it will be eight years to the end of the century and there will be many challenges to face in terms of making the nation successful and wealth-creating. Those challenges are very real. We shall meet those challenges of creating wealth only if we meet the twin challenges of ever-changing technology and faster-changing markets. If we do not have the skilled work force to meet those twin challenges, we shall not make wealth. The Labour party wants to distribute that wealth in a dramatically different way from the way the Tory party wants to distribute it, but we both agree that wealth creation is the ultimate aim. That is not the only aim of education, but the debate has made clear how important it is.
We have to compete to survive. In that sense, the debate has had some refreshing insights. A great deal has been said about the importance of producing transferable skills. What will happen in 1992 makes it important that we consider seriously the transfer of skills and qualifications across Europe. We need to be planning for educational credit cards and educational entitlement cards, which will be a passport for work and opportunity across Europe. We want the Government to be attending to that now. There should be a dialogue about the reality of that impact over the next few years. People still talk about 1992 as though it is in the distant future, but it will come soon. We shall need transferable credit cards for education and transferable qualifications, transferable entitlement, and the ability to meet that entitlement from a wide range of sources. I do not ignore the international dimension beyond Europe.
A second aspect is the changing nature of work in this and every industrial country and the ever more rapid movement to something touched on in speech after speech—the lack of need for the unskilled. All of us remember going past factories when we were young and seeing a sign saying "Hands wanted". We do not see that sign very often these days. There was an implication that brains need not apply. We had an educational system that, for too long, relied on producing a large number of people that were a pair of hands and little else. The structure of industry—for


example, the structure of the chemical industry when I entered it—was based on a demand for such unskilled people. That demand does not exist any more. There are exceptions, such as the construction and mining industries. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) seems to know very little about mines. I do not think that shovels are necessary any longer. I recommend that he visits a mine to check that out.
Most industry does not need unskilled workers, and the challenge of education is to produce brain power and the people that the new generation of industry needs. We do not need narrow skills. We do not need job-specific skills. All the evidence shows that the young person leaving school will need to change and retrain and train again. To give someone a job-specific skill now is to do no service to the nation or to the individual. The nature of education has to move fast.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the demographic changes. I have been here for most of the debate and two specific points have not come out properly. One is that the decline in the number of young people has serious implications for every sector. I am a former university teacher, but I shall say less about universities than about anything else. However, several hon. Members have spoken about the way in which universities will have to compete for a smaller pool of talented people. Both sides have to accept that for far too long universities and higher education have been a preserve for a tiny elite. The number of people going into higher education must be increased dramatically, whichever party is in Government.
Throughout the labour market those changes will be hard felt. I shall concentrate on two categories. For all kinds of reasons part of that demographic change is that there will be more black young people as a percentage of the population. It is important that the House takes notice of that. I do not want to knock employers from the Dispatch Box, but there is evidence that employers have less positive attitudes to black young people than to white young people. A new attitude to black young people and to their possibilities and potential must sweep through British industry. As I have said, as a percentage of the population there will be more black young people in the job market and we must use their talents to the full.
Another demographic change is that we shall be far more dependent on women returners than ever before. We must start taking seriously the job of attracting women back into the labour market and we must take far more seriously the challenge of how we treat part-time employees in our economy. For too long British industry has regarded part-time employment as cheap employment. Some of our major industrial competitors such as the United States and Sweden do not pay women less than men and do not regard part-time employees as working for pin money. They believe in taking that labour resource as seriously as any other labour resource. This country is lagging far behind in terms of attitude to women returners and part-time workers. Decisions about that low-wage attitude to part-time work must be made soon.
We should question industry's record on education. When we talk about education and industry some of us knock education far more than industry. It is fashionable to say that there should be a more positive relationship between schools and industry. I am part of my party's Front Bench employment team and, having listened to many debates—I have been away from education debates for a year or so—I must say that industry's record is not

all that marvellous when it is put under scrutiny. Some of the best employers in this country cannot be beaten worldwide. They are super. However, if one looks below the top level, one starts to think that we are a long way behind many of our industrial competitors when it comes to employers' attitudes—CBI report or not.
Let us look at what is happening in the south-east of England and in other parts of the country now that we have a downturn in demographic trends and a slight upturn in the economy. Two or three years ago all hon. Members were congratulating ourselves on the fact that the school leaving age had effectively been raised to 18. We were saying that everyone leaves school at 16, that although there are no jobs for 16-year-olds, they go into YTS if they do not get anything else, or into further or higher education. In the past 18 months with that slight upturn in the economy and with fewer people leaving school at 16, there have been more jobs available. However, we have gone back to the rotten old system of more than 100,000 young people this year going into jobs with no training and being offered nothing—not even YTS.
I introduced a simple little Bill in June saying that there should be a duty on every employer in this country to train young employees to at least the minimum standard of" the two-year YTS. If there is a compulsion on young people to take up a YTS place—if we are honest we would agree that it is a compulsion because young people cannot get unemployment or any other benefit if they do not—there should be a duty on employers to train to at least that minimum standard. It cannot be right for a civilised industrialised nation in 1988 to take vast numbers of young people into employment with no training.
Two weeks ago I went to a job fair at Derby. At one end of the exhibition hall was the stand of a wonderful local engineering employer who in some senses was of the old school, although the company had kept pace with changes. It had kept going, even through the difficult times. I refer to NEI, the international combustion company, which provides engineering for the power industry. It takes 50 apprentices a year, and did so even through the bad days. It has an enlightened apprenticeship system, which is vital for engineering. It is unfortunate that this has largely disappeared elsewhere. In come the lads—mostly lads—at 16 to craft apprenticeships. If they were good enough, they went into technicians apprenticeships. If they were better than that, they went into anything. They would go through university and postgraduate work. Two members of the NEI board started as apprentices. That good tradition used to provide a channel for the youngster who left school at 16 with ability but perhaps not with family backing for higher education. Such youngsters were still able to make it, as it were, through the apprenticeship tradition.
At the other end of the exhibition hall was the United Biscuits stand. I believe that the chairman, Sir Hector Laing, is a friend of the Prime Minister. It had a large display stand, most of which was set out to enable those who attended the job fair to try the company's fresh biscuits. The biscuits were pleasant, but I asked the representatives of the company about the training that was provided for school leavers. The company was offering free bus travel to school leavers of 16 years if they chose to work at the buscuit factory at Ashby-de-la-Zouch. I asked whether the company was part of the youth training scheme or whether it offered a different system. I was told: "We don't do that. We give them about six weeks'


training." I took that up and pointed out that that approach ran counter to the feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the House on education and industrial training. It is commonly felt that the good employer should offer a broad-based training for life. The company representative said, "We are training these people only to be biscuit feeders. You do not need more than six weeks' training to be a biscuit feeder."
I observed that later in life some of these young people might want to be something different from a biscuit feeder. I pointed out that the factory might close down. The United Biscuits factory at Halifax, which is near to my constituency, recently announced its closure. I asked what the biscuit feeders would do if that happened. The response was, "Once a biscuit feeder, always a biscuit feeder."
The two attitudes—those of NEI and United Biscuits—are very different. The approach of United Biscuits and that of some other large employers must be changed. Unfortunately, it is one that goes to the heart of the problem that is created by the binary divide in our education system. It is the divide between the academic haves and the vocational nots. We still have not tackled the problem.
I understand that Back Benchers want to be nice to those on the Front Bench on their side of the House. Some of us take that approach on the Opposition Benches, especially when we are looking for promotion. Some might say that there is not much chance of that, at least until the next election. The fact is that we all have to be nice to those on the Front Bench. It is a fact that the binary divide and the problems that it represents has not been tackled by the Government since they took office in 1979. We still have the dreadful system that means that far too high a percentage of our youngsters leave school at 16 years because they are unable to continue in higher education. Many of them are unable to do so for all sorts of reasons, including economic pressures. These youngsters do not have the opportunities that are enjoyed by the academic mainstream, the elite, who pass through the comprehensive system into higher education.
The problem has become worse and there are now three strata. First, there are the privileged young people who go through university and then obtain professional qualifications. Secondly, there are those who stay on in non-advanced further education. They obtain good qualifications but very often their opportunities are not as great as those enjoyed by those who go into higher education. Many of these youngsters in NAFE should be in higher education and gaining degrees and other post-graduate qualifications. Thirdly, there is the group who have no training. These youngsters go into YTS.
Youth training was designed in this country originally as a scheme—and I hope that the Minister will agree with this because I think that he knows something about it—for employed and unemployed youngsters at 16. Apart from 9 or 10 per cent., it has become a programme for the unemployed youngster. If the Government can do anything immediately to change what is happening between education and industry, they should ensure that YTS returns to being a programme for the unemployed and employed young person at 16. The Government have increased the divide between the two sides. The divide

between the technical and vocational education initiative and the national curriculum is typical of that rather loose thinking of which the Government are guilty. On the one hand TVEI looks at a spread of coherence across subjects while the new national curriculum deals with matters subject by subject. There is a contradiction in terms of the way in which those two initiatives originate, one from the Department of Employment and the other from the Department of Education and Science. Whatever is said about joint press conferences between three Departments, in many of the areas that we have discussed today, it is about time those Departments got their act together.
The Government have structured matters that way and have reinforced the sharp distinction that I have mentioned. Those Conservative Members who have complained about the lack of ideas on the Labour Benches have not read the material. I had a great deal to do with the Labour party manifesto in this area before the last general election and in the policy groups prior to the election. Our ideas and policies about what we would do for people aged between 14 and 20 were very imaginative and bold. The idea of a building block for every youngster aged 16 to 20 was an offer to which everyone aged 16 could look forward as it would provide education and training for four years. That would at last give the have-nots, who have never had higher education opportunities or the resources spent on them, an opportunity to look forward to at least four years of opportunity to fulfil themselves.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said, the 16 to 20s problem is the Government's weakest spot. That group is crucial to an education-industry linkage and the position will not be improved unless some very bold decisions are taken over the next year or two. Those decisions will come too late if they are not made soon.
Finally I want to consider exactly what education and industry links really mean. Industry does not mean simply employers of managers. It means everyone working in industry and that includes employees and trade unions. Education also means educationists and experts. It also includes people with expertise in local education authorities who, for donkey's years, have been more interested in eduction and more expert than most hon. Members in this House. During the past two years we have seen a rupture in the consensus on education and training which will do immense damage over the next 10 or 20 years.
The Government's decision to break the consensus in terms of the Manpower Services Commission and their attack on local authorities and trade unions means that it is almost impossible to achieve a fruitful dialogue on the very subject that we have discussed today.
If we really want to go ahead and build a relationship between industry and education we need to do so on the basis of consensus and co-operation. The Government and the Prime Minister do not believe in that. In the short term there may be political advantages in drawing that type of battle line, but in the long term we shall see more evidence of the rupture of the past two months, produced as a result of the Government's decisions. That will mean that many of the things that we have agreed on today, for example that we must have good education and employment links, will fall by the wayside because of the failure to build a consensus that will bring practical and positive measures into practice.

Mr. Butcher: First, I pay tribute to every contributor to the debate. It is almost a convention of the House that in winding-up speeches, those who respond comment that it has been an excellent and rewarding debate, or words to that effect. There is something about Friday debates, and perhaps about this particular subject, that leads me to make that assertion with a great deal of conviction.
At 10 o'clock, I sat down after saying that I would be interested to hear the observations of hon. Members in all parts of the House. Over the past few hours, we have been treated to a number of very positive suggestions. One could argue that if all education debates were as positive as this one has been, many outside who complain that education is used as a political football would feel a lot easier about how those who deal with the politics of education perform.
I begin by disputing the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), in that the whole ethos behind the major and significant policy changes we have witnessed over the past two or three years has been the building of bridges between the consumers and the demanders of educational skill and those who are the suppliers of those skills and capabilities in the schools. For example, if one looks at the curriculum for subjects such as CDT, and at what is happening in the TVEI, it will be seen that we are breaking down the divide to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield referred, and to which we both referred in a historical context, between vocational education and academic trends.
It appears to be a ritual in education debates that contributors must establish their credentials. Although I was most grateful to my hon. Friends for their comments about my industrial experience, I may point out that I spent six years as a member of the city of Birmingham education authority, the second largest in the country, and served as its chairman for two years. I am also married to a teacher, and I assure hon. Members that I become involved in discussions on conditions of service over the breakfast table virtually five days a week.
Something that I found very encouraging about our debate was that, if I compare the terminology used in the education debates in Birmingham in which I participated as a local authority councillor with that used in this debate and generally throughout the country today, there is to be seen a refreshing change in the way in which people discuss the role of education. I was present when the then emissary of Lord Callaghan, Mrs. Shirley Williams, came to Birmingham to indulge in something called the great debate. As I recall, it was concerned with the relevance of education, and the then Labour party was very worried about the alienation that many parents felt towards what the education service was delivering.
We have actually done something about that. There is a growing consensus that if we can bring the market place—if I dare use that term in an education debate, in referring to the demanders of skill, the employers and parents—closer to the teachers, then many of the things that hon. Members have said they wish to see happen will happen. That closeness of itself is a management technique that can deliver the results we want.
I wish to respond to points made by every hon. Member, but before doing so I shall conclude my remarks on the changes in the relationship with school governors

and in management practices that we expect will occur over the next few years—being necessary in satisfying the need for closer links between industry and education.
The new governing bodies will include people with an enormous variety of background and experience. They will give their time partly as a matter of public service, but also because they recognise that it is a key opportunity to influence the direction that education is taking and the preparation that our young people receive for adult life and employment. We believe that the new arrangements will enrich the life of each individual school and will make a significant contribution to higher standards of education.
The introduction of local management of schools will rely substantially on the new governing bodies. In my view, this reform—which is part of the general reforms—has been comprehensively underestimated by commentators on the Education Reform Act. The enthusiasm and commitment of governors will be a key factor in enhancing the responsiveness of schools at a local community level and, by keying the education process into local conditions and local priorities, helping to increase the efficiency of the system and to ensure that all pupils are properly prepared to lead an effective and practical working life. Similarly, the new city technology colleges mentioned by two of my hon. Friends will provide their pupils with a thorough preparation for the increasingly specialised requirements that the changing needs of industry will create.
There are many other examples of partnership. Education and employment are brought close together in the compact, in which the Department of Employment will spend £12 million over three years, and in the very successful TVEI scheme. We can all benefit from the personal experience that we gain from talking to youngsters and teachers. One of the most rewarding conversations that I have had recently was with an industrialist who was overjoyed that his hitherto non-academic son had suddenly discovered the joy of learning through TVEI, which triggered his interest in other academic areas. That initiative restored the faith of a wealthy man—whose son had all the advantages—in the education system and its relevance for his son.

Mr. Fatchett: I accept much of what the Minister has said about TVEI, and I have seen very good work related to it in schools up and down the country. Like a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House, however, I am concerned about how TVEI can be linked with the national curriculum. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) spoke of the curriculum being seen very much in "subject" terms. Can the Minister put to rest some of the fears about the relationship between the work in TVEI and the proposals in the curriculum?

Mr. Butcher: TVEI complements a number of parts of the curriculum, particularly CDT. I do not propose this afternoon to say how I would seek to manage the consolidation of disciplines, but I expect that much of my time, particularly over the next six months, will be devoted to that managerial question. [Hon. Members: "Good answer."] It was an excellent answer. If the hon. Member for Leeds, Central had seen the briefing, he would realise how excellent it was.
Much has been said about the consolidation and co-ordination of the various bodies. It has been asked


whether there are too many, and whether we should try to bring them together. That, too will be very much a part of my preoccupations, and no doubt the House will test me in the coming months on the conclusions that we reach, but I feel that we have made a good start in bringing together the various packages. The variety of interest and approach is to be welcomed. We do not want people to get in each other's way, and we do not want laudable organisations to be ignored or not to receive the attention that they require to meet their objectives, so we shall have to stay very close to them.
Many people outside the House are asking why there has been such a major reform—this immense momentum and dynamism in the politics of education during the past two years. It is because the world beyond these shores so ordained it. The dynamism was not there for its own sake. Those who are competing with us economically, industrially and commercially are running faster and faster and faster. The race for competitiveness—I use those words advisedly—and the economic warfare that is going on in the international markets mean that we have to respond.
John Egan has been quoted. He is a very interesting man—an industrialist who takes the trouble to think about the broader issues. Happily, more people like him are to be found by the day. However, he says that it is not a question of Jaguar competing with Mercedes but of the people of Coventry being able to compete with the people of Stuttgart. What we are able to do to enhance the capabilities and the skills of our people will decide who wins that race. That is why there has been this immense impetus for change in the education system. If we do not respond to what our competitors are doing we shall become the nation of the whole man who is only half a man because he knows nothing about the needs of commerce, industry and enterprise. That is what lies behind a number of the reforms that have been introduced.
We have to think seriously about retraining and re-education, a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). We have identified today an interesting consensus. It may have been identified before, but unfortunately I did not witness it. We are now educating people who can be trained. Employers do not want a trained shorthand typist or a trained tool-setter to emerge from the education system at 18. They want people who are equipped with the core skills on to which they can graft the appropriate training. They also want an education system that is flexible enough to enable people to undertake further regrafts of skill and capability five, 10 or 15 years later.
I welcome the growing movement between the public and the private sector at the further education and the higher education levels. They are doing deals, they are recognising opportunities, they are getting money into the universities from both the private and the public sectors. The further education colleges in particular are moving very fast in that direction. They are responding to the consensus, so we are all on the same side. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich clearly identified that point.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), whose interventions in other debates I have always enjoyed, is absolutely right when he says that manufacturing in this country matters. We shall always have to make and

manufacture products, simply because manufacturing output is 80 per cent. internationally tradeable. If we succour and look after manufacturing, we shall be supporting a sector that earns foreign currency most efficiently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) reinforced the point that education must continue. We need to focus on the need for re-education and retraining throughout working life. Our graduates need to learn new skills, too. Furthermore, because of the demographic time bomb, considerable attention will have to be paid to the retraining and re-educating of women who leave work to have a family. Those women, who may be professionals, skilled or semi-skilled, will need to be able to return to work seven, 10 or 12 years after they have made the laudable commitment to bring up a family. The same will also apply to some men.

Mr. Rathbone: I made two specific requests—one was for increased block grant to the Open university and the second was for ministerial help by direct funding and encouragement for underwriting educational capability. Can my hon. Friend say a few words about that?

Mr. Butcher: I do not like using those time honoured words, "I shall write to my hon. Friend," but I think that I ought to on this occasion because the issues that he has raised are huge. Moreover, for reasons that he will understand, they are not issues purely for my Department. I shall therefore have to respond in a more considered manner. I give an undertaking that I shall discharge that obligation on those two points.
I must tell the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) that I am not a Welshman, but I have the odd sprinkling of his nation's language as a result of spending a lot of time in his part of the world. He will know that there is a famous Welsh folk song called "Dyddian Difyr". If my pronunciation is correct, the hon. Gentleman will know that it has an interesting and subtle meaning. It means interesting days or happy days. I believe that, for education, we are in for a period of "Dyddian Difyr." The profession has to be happy and interested.
There are probably more Welsh teachers in Birmingham and the midlands than there are in Ynys Môn. I am aware that they bring a certain flair to our cultural life in the classroom. The hon. Gentleman was down to earth about careers in industry. He wants us to be more positive about them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) also raised this matter when he talked about the prejudice involved when schoolchildren are crocodiled around a factory and told, "This is where you will end up if you do not get decent GCSEs or A-levels." That must stop. It is coming to an end. The culture is changing and the fusion of the vocational with the academic is, happily, under way.
I agree that where contact between business and the education system is patchy, we should do whatever we can to discover the best practice and see that it is general practice throughout the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) made some interesting observations. There is nothing wrong with variety, provided that variety of choice produces a general trend towards excellence. That is what we have set in hand.
In his own way, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is a shortage. I do not want him to retire because the Labour Benches need working men. I understand that they are running out of working men, that there are far too many academics and that the number of sons of toil is on the retreat. "Do not retire" is my message to the hon. Member for Ashfield. His party needs him and I suspect that his national executive may call on him shortly. It needs his pithy observations on the real needs of working people.
When discussing skill shortages, we have to be careful to define what we are talking about. I recall a major examination of shortages in information technology four years ago revealing that the shortage was not so much in computer sciences as in physicists and mathematicians who make the great leaps in computer science. Electronic engineers were easier to supply, as the Japanese have found out.
That debate has moved on because some people in the computer industry now say that they want classically trained scholars. People who read Latin and Greek apparently make brilliant systems analysts and software engineers. The argument keeps moving. We cannot say, "Here is a quota for an identifiable shortage. We now need 7,500 electronic engineers." because that target will move almost overnight. Our system must therefore be able to respond flexibly. The new partnerships that are being built up between academia and industry in vocational areas are one of the ways in which we can ensure that we are fast on our feet.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Ashfield that all our head teachers will have to become accountants. Our head teachers, with their governing bodies, will enjoy the responsibilities that they will have. In every walk of life we see that, time and time again, if one pushes responsibility upstream there is an improvement in responsiveness and quality. The schools will enjoy their responsibilities—I am convinced of that. They will enjoy the fact that they will be able to deploy their own resources within their commitments to teaching and logistic support.
I read a flip comment from one spokesman about what will happen in Cambridgeshire. He said that schools would not run the radiators as hot as they used to because they will now be paying for the fuel. There is something in that comment. If one talks about transferring certain sums of money within a school's expenditure heads of account one does examine critically where one feels one might be wasteful. One also examines most carefully where one definitely needs to spend more money. If a school decides to push up salary grades for maths and physics teachers so be it. We have a sophisticated profession; it is asking for management training support and cash support, which it will get.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Is my hon. Friend saying that schools, particularly primary schools, will receive more cash support?

Mr. Butcher: An announcement has already been made that there will be a programme, cash supported, to provide those management skills that a number of our head teachers feel are necessary. We understand and respect that view. I shall have to come back to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) about the level to which that support will be given to primary schools

and how far down it will go. My hon. Friend will know that there is some discussion as to when that support is triggered as well as regarding the size of the school.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) we need more commitment and we need to be motivated about education. Those who come back from Japan after their first visit always draw the same conclusion: there is nothing that the Japanese are doing either in education or in industry that we cannot do or have not already done. What they have in abundance in Japan is commitment—with a capital C. They are utterly committed to drive to meet their objectives and that is the only distinction between our two industrial cultures. We are acquiring and must continue to acquire that level of motivation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) found a phrase for that when he talked about zeal for achievement. He quoted a famous person as coining that phrase. I believe that the word commitment should be added to that phrase.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) made a telling contribution. I am sure that he would agree that the smart graduate is the one who recognises a trend before everyone else. That is necessary if he wishes to be involved in a career that is lucrative, rewarding and satisfying. I would advise people to buck the hitherto perceived trend of not moving into engineering. That market will have its revenge and salaries will increase if the shortages in certain skills in engineering continue.
If I were a young man or woman of 21 reading an applied science degree I would look hard at the present scenario. I believe that all of us could go out tomorrow and write a speech entitled "Would I let my son marry an engineer?" I believe that that would be a good thesis to examine because women who go into engineering to fill the gaps left by men, who are not going in in sufficient numbers, will be extremely attractive future brides on the basis of their income, their intellect and job security.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) that we agree completely that there should be proper co-ordination and consolidation where it is required. But does he agree that, on education and industry links, we are no longer talking about why we should have them but how we have them? That is the major change, and it is to be greatly welcomed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) wanted to see more secondees from industry in education, and he made an interesting point about how that should be viewed in terms of tax advantages to the company. I shall faithfully report his comments to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he goes into purdah to see whether he has any observations to make directly to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) invited me to march into an especially controversial area which I shall not do this afternoon. He was interested in the shortage subjects in teaching. All that I will say now is this: if we are to tackle the problem, we need more flexibility in the way that we reward our teachers. That flexibility must reflect not only skill shortages but geographical shortages.

It being half past Two o 'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 25th October, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Neil Kinnock as if that day were one of the days allocated under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business).—[Mr. Fallon.]

Housing Associations (Neasden)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Mr. Ken Livingstone: This issue should not be a source of contention between the parties because it relates to a community in my constituency which shares many of the values that have been severely eroded in other parts of our society. This long-established community is known as Neasden village. It has housed three generations of London Transport workers who have served the community well and from whom we have seen many examples of community service that we would like to spread to the other major cities where that sense of community no longer exists.
The community is seriously threatened by a pernicious property developer, and I fear that what is happening in Neasden will happen in many other areas when the Government's housing legislation, which is still before Parliament, becomes law.
Neasden village consists of 272 homes spread over four streets in a fairly isolated area. It was developed in two phases, with 142 brick houses and 130 concrete houses. As one would expect, the concrete houses need more repairs than the brick houses. The uniqueness of the estate is recognised by the fact that the local council has declared it a conservation area.
The first appalling decision in this case was that of London Transport more than a year ago not to maintain those houses and provide homes for its workers but to sell them on the open market. Given the problems that we are told London Transport has of finding people to drive its trains and buses, it is breathtaking that such an estate should have been put on the market. The Government, through the Housing Corporation, and Brent council backed a reputable local housing association that wanted to purchase the properties and continue to run them in a reponsible fashion. Unfortunately, it was gazumped. A property developer was prepared to pay more than the market rate, determined by the district valuer and the council, and the reputable housing association was unable to buy the houses. The estate passed in to the hands of Asda Securities Ltd.
There is a major problem in terms of the Government's policy for funding housing associations through the Housing Corporation. Housing associations are restricted by the real market value of occupied properties, but a property developer can look at the same properties and estimate how many of the tenants can be winkled out. He can see the longer-term potential for development by emptying the homes and selling them on the open market. So housing associations are hamstrung when in competition with the less desirable property speculators.
The same day that Asda Securities bought the properties it immediately sold the concrete homes—130 of them—to a firm called Unicoin (Neasden) Ltd. The tenants in the homes passed into the loving care of their new landlord, a Mr. Sturt. His approach to housing management seems to have been largely influenced by the activities of the American Mafia, and I am sure that no hon. Member of any party would find his approach desirable or worthy of emulation. Since Mr. Sturt took


over, no repairs have been done. He immediately applied for a £10 a week rent increase, but on appeal from the tenants that was reduced to £1·50.
Then there started a series of harassing visits. Many of the tenants, who are now elderly, received calls at odd times of the day urging them to move and warning them that major disruption would be caused by development works in the area. Confusion and doubt were spread among the community. All sorts of disturbing rumours abounded, but no real information. Mr. Sturt opened no genuine channel of communication with his tenants. He started offering sums of money to tenants to move out. Tenants who resisted have in some cases been offered as much as £15,000. That sounds like a reasonable sum but I can assure the House that a one-bedroom flat in my constituency usually goes for about £60,000. So what good would £15,000 be to a family that had lost its home? It would eventually become a burden on the local council and have to occupy bed and breakfast accommodation. What use would £15,000 be to a pensioner who would have no chance of getting a mortgage to take him up to the £60,000 which is the going rate in Brent?
Mr. Sturt found that, by and large, tenants were not interested in his offer, so he chose to up the pressure—which is why I referred earlier to the Mafia style of housing management. At 6 o'clock one morning this June a group of men claiming to be building workers arrived in the area, climbed on to the roofs of the properties and started to rip the tiles off, throwing them down through the buildings and thus causing even more damage. They started with the properties that Mr. Sturt had kept empty throughout the previous year but they moved on to occupied properties, ripping away the gable tiles and allowing water penetration into occupied homes. Mr. Sturt was achieving his objective: having failed to bribe or harass the tenants to move out he was now engaging in a physical drive to do so by demolishing the houses around them. That was completely illegal, as the place is a conservation area. He broke the law to achieve his ends. Brent council issued a notice that he should desist from his activities, with which he eventually complied.
Since then, Mr. Sturt has taken no action to repair the properties from which his building workers ripped the roofs, and deterioration continues. Moreover, tenants wonder whether a landlord who is prepared to behave like this will not have other extremely unpleasant tricks up his sleeve. Mr. Sturt then had the remarkable gall to say that he would not meet the tenants because they were behaving like a lynch mob. If so, they had my sympathy. Mr. Sturt's housing management record stretches my opposition to capital punishment to the point at which I might be able to make an exception: the limited reintroduction of hanging for this sort of landlord.
Mr. Sturt then applied for planning permission, having recognised that the council would not allow him to demolish the properties illegally. He has now applied to demolish all 130. Where will the tenants living in the properties that are still occupied be rehoused by Mr. Sturt? A community that has lasted three generations is now to be thrown to one side so that Mr. Sturt can make a fast speculative profit with half the homes in a conservation area. He intends to replace them with buildings of different heights, completely altering the nature and scale of the conservation area. The development would consist of 392 yuppie flats and bedsits. If the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) were with us today he would

confirm that there is tremendous traffic congestion in this area. The site borders the Neasden roundabout and a busy junction with the north circular road. No member of any political party would support the idea of many yuppies and cars coming into an area that is already a nightmare of traffic congestion. I am sure that opposition to that would unite all the members of Brent council.
The House will be interested to know that Mr. Sturt does not share the Prime Minister's commitment to the environment, which she recently expressed in a speech. He intends to demolish the mature oaks and silver birch trees that have grown on the site over three generations to make way for the maximum number of new tacky homes that he can squeeze into Neasden village.
What should the House ask the Government to do? I appeal to the Minister to consider several matters. The House should say that these homes should be repaired. Simply to demolish homes that have been neglected, especially by a landlord who refuses to repair them, is not the answer. If a house needs to be demolished because there is no possibility of repairing it, it needs to be sensitively replaced so that it blends into the existing community.
The Government face a choice in terms of their funding of housing associations. They can give associations the freedom to bid against the speculative developer and go beyond the price agreed by the district valuer. None of us would welcome that because it would mean spending more public money in a market where property speculators endlessly bid up prices. The alternative that I recommend to the Government would cost nothing extra. It is to support compulsory purchase orders placed by the local council on properties such as those at Neasden, but with the specific agreement that instead of control passing to the council the properties would automatically be sold as soon as the council's compulsory purchase order was confirmed by the Government. They would be sold to a reputable local housing association or to the tenants who could buy them individually or collectively. That would achieve for private tenants what public sector tenants have been given in the right-to-buy legislation—the ability to determine the ownership of their properties. I have no doubt that that would receive overwhelming public support in areas of the country where bad landlords continue to abuse their tenants.
I ask the Government to look at how easy it is for people such as Mr. Sturt to get away with these activities. The penalties for the illegal activities undertaken by Mr. Sturt in a conservation area are laughable. No doubt he could make £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000 profit per property on the sites where he has illegally tried to demolish these houses. No financial penalty imposed by the courts could ever deter people such as Mr. Sturt. He will laugh all the way to the bank. We should compare the penalties that he might face to the penalties being imposed by courts for insider trading in the City where financiers face long prison sentences. An insider trader indulges in evil activities that disrupt people's financial lives, but is it not worse that homes and communities should be disrupted by Mr. Sturt?
We know about the doubt and confusion felt by a person who is mugged on the street. Mr. Sturt's activity damages people's lives by causing worry, confusion and doubt, and the pain felt by many of his tenants ranks with the damage caused by the mugger on the street. When dealing with such vandals we should hand out heavy


prison sentences. I hope that the Minister will look at the severity of the penalties that are available. The only deterrent to people such as Mr. Sturt is the knowledge that they will be put inside for two or three years. We also need to find ways in which we can assist tenants to prosecute their landlords when they refuse, month after month, to carry out repairs.
This is not a party matter. I do not think that any Tory Member would support the activities of people like Sturt any more than they supported the activities of people like Rachman. We should be able to unite against such characters. I know that the Minister will not be able to give a commitment now, and will say that these matters will have to be considered. If Brent council seeks to put a compulsory purchase order on these properties, I beg him to say that the Government will consider that favourably. It would be a warning to many others of Mr. Sturt's inclination if the House were united beyond party divisions to make sure that bad landlordism like this is not allowed to destroy established and respected working class communities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on having obtained this debate and spoken on so important a subject. It is extremely gracious of him to say that he understands that the Minister cannot give a commitment, because that is certainly true. It is an interesting exercise for Ministers to guess or second-guess what hon. Members will raise in detail in their Adjournment debates. I was unaware of the vast majority of what the hon. Gentleman told us. I can give him the assurance that I will look at it, but the councils and the tenants to whom he has referred, who are involved in this case, should exercise the legal remedies available to them. I am handicapped by not being able to comment on that because the matter may come before the courts and there may be some legal redress. As the hon. Member has gone wider in his comments by talking about funding, I shall say something about that and return to the specific point about the village later. In this case, it may not have made as much difference as he suggested, but that is a matter for conjecture and not of fact.
The housing association movement has a long and honourable tradition with its rare, if not unique, combination of social awareness and enterprise. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the housing association movement has a long and proven track record, with some of the most distinguished and active housing associations in the country. They include the Brent people's housing association, now called the network group, the Paddington churches housing association and the metropolitan housing trust. Others have earned a well-deserved local reputation, often catering for special needs.
In Brent, housing associations own about 6,900 homes—about one third as many as the council, which is a high figure—and more than 7 per cent. of the entire housing stock. There are few aspects of housing provision in which the associations are not involved. They buy property, improve it to the standards that we now expect, convert

properties into self-contained flats, and house the homeless and those in special need. I shall come to examples of those later.
The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government pay grant, known as housing association grant, for approved projects carried out by housing associations that are registered with the Housing Corporation, and this is a capital grant. In 1987–88, the total amount paid was £886 million. This went towards the cost of buying land for development, buying standing properties for use as housing, building work, professional fees and interest on the cost of the projects. There are two routes for applying for grant—through the local authority or to the Housing Corporation—and loan finance may come from either source. When we drew up our recent proposals, we saw an advantage in making the corporation the sole funding agency.
The hon. Member for Brent, East suggested that more money should be made available to housing associations. If the means whereby that could be made available were through the housing association grant, he is clearly looking to the Government—at the moment, there are negotiations with the Treasury—for an increase in future years' allocation for such an exercise. It may be we would agree on that. There may be no political difference between us on that. What interests me in the debate is whether, had there been additional money available for the housing association to which the hon. Gentleman referred, it would have changed the situation. I am allowed to comment on that.
Although the hon. Gentleman is understandably concerned over what has been happening at Neasden village, where the network organisation was unsuccessful in bidding for houses sold by LRT, the figure that the association bid was obviously a matter for its own judgment, based no doubt on qualified professional advice. Naturally, I do not have knowledge of the association's finances, but even if it had had the funds available it does not necessarily follow that it would have increased its bid for the properties. It could have taken the view that expenditure at that level would produce a poor return in housing terms compared with other projects it might have carried out. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that that is possible: Perhaps we need to explore that further.
As the village is a conservation area—the hon. Gentleman referred to that—demolition of any of the buildings will require the consent of the local planning authority or of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it would be wrong for me to speculate on the future of the village in that sense because the Department plays a semi-judicial role in that respect. However, I can give him an assurance that what he has said will be taken into account when we consider the matter.
On the subject of the tenants, hon. Members will know of the existing legal safeguards against harassment and of our proposals for strengthening them in the Housing Bill. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to accept all that we are seeking to do in the Bill and he has already spoken about that. However, as far as I am able, I can give him the assurance he seeks that I shall consider the matter. If he wishes to come to the Department of the Environment, I am prepared to meet him to discuss the subject. It would be unwise at this stage to go further.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Three o'clock.